Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

NEW WRIT.

For the County of Derby (Western Division), in the room of Edward William Spencer Cavendish, Esquire, commonly called the Marquess of Hartington, called up to the House of Peers.—[Captain Margesson.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Blackburn Corporation Bill [Lords],

To be read a Second time To-morrow.

Gateshead Corporation Bill [Lords],

London County Council (Money) Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

EAST LOTHIAN WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,

" to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to East Lothian Water," presented by Mr. Elliot; and ordered (under Section 9 of the Act) to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 24th May, and to be printed. [Bill 147.]

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

CIVIL AND MILITARY SERVICES.

Mr. Day: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India the amounts charged in the accounts, for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date, of payments made in Great Britain to officers in the Indian Civil and Military Services?

The Under-Secretary of State for India (Lord Stanley): The total amount brought to charge during the year 1937–38 through the accounts of the Secretary of State for India, the Secretary of State for Burma and the High Commissioner for India, in respect of pay, leave pay, overseas pay, outfit allowances, unemployed pay, pensions and gratuities of officers of the Indian Civil and Military Services was £6,511,583. This figure does not include the amounts paid to the War Office and the Air Ministry for the Indian share of the pensions of officers of the British Army and the Royal Air Force, or the leave pay of officers of British regiments.

Mr. Day: Can the Noble Lord say what amount is recoverable from the Imperial Government?

Lord Stanley: I will look into the matter and communicate with the hon. Member.

ARMY (STRENGTH).

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether there is in contemplation any plan for the reorganisation of the


Army in India involving a diminution in strength?

Lord Stanley: I regret that I cannot anticipate the result of the discussions which are now proceeding regarding the strength and location of the Defence Forces.

Sir A. Knox: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India the present strength of the British Army in India; and the strength at approximately the same date last year?

Lord Stanley: The strength of the British Army in India on 1st April, 1938, was 51,669 officers and other ranks. On the corresponding date last year the strength was 57,525 officers and other ranks. This reduction is principally due to the abolition of the practice of "holding."

Sir A. Knox: Is there any prospect of that establishment being reached next year, as the present figure is probably the lowest for nearly 50 years?

Lord Stanley: I must have notice of that question.

CZECHOSLOVAKIA.

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Prime Minister whether he can make any statement on the proposals as regards minorities protection embodied in the proposed minorities statute in Czechoslovakia; and whether he will invite the League of Nations Council to consider the application of the same principles to the minorities question in other countries?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): The proposals to which the hon. Member refers are, I understand, still under consideration by the Czechoslovak Government. I am, therefore, unable to make any statement on the subject or to give an answer to the second part of the question.

Mr. Davies: In view of the fact that similar problems arise in Poland and Italy, will His Majesty's Government see that the same sort of principle is applied to both those countries?

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Prime Minister what representations His Majesty's Government have recently addressed to the Government of Czechoslovakia with regard to the concessions

to be given to the Sudeten Germans; and whether he will give an assurance that no support will be given by His Majesty's Government to any concession which would destroy any of the effective defences of Czechoslovakia against the Germans?

Mr. Vyvyan Adams: asked the Prime Minister (1) whether he will make it clear that the Government of the United Kingdom cannot support the Henlein demands to the Prague Government, since they are incompatible with the sovereign status of Czechoslovakia, and since they would, if granted, impair the security of that country;

(2) whether he has any statement to make about negotiations for the settlement of the Sudeten Deutsch problem in Czechoslovakia?

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Prime Minister whether he is now able to make any statement concerning the representations made by His Majesty's representatives in Berlin and Prague concerning the German minorities in Czechoslovakia?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's representative in Prague has had conversations with the Czechoslovak President of the Council and Minister for Foreign Affairs about this question. His Majesty's Government have not suggested to the Czechoslovak Government any particular measures or concessions, but have urged the desirability, with which the Czechoslovak Government is in full agreement, of doing everything in their power to further an agreed settlement of the problem. A discussion has also taken place between the German Foreign Minister and His Majesty's Ambassador in Berlin. Matters have not yet reached a stage when I can usefully make a further statement.

Mr. A. Henderson: Will the hon. Gentleman give the assurance asked for in the latter part of my question, that His Majesty's Government will give no support to any concessions which will destroy the effective defence of Czechoslovakia?

Mr. Butler: As I said in my reply, we have not suggested to Czechoslovakia any particular measures or concessions.

Mr. V. Adams: Do not His Majesty's Government resist the claim of the minority in Czechoslovakia to dictate to the Czechoslovakian Government the nature of their foreign policy?

Mr. Butler: I am afraid that at this stage I cannot add to the statement I have made.

Sir Archibald Sinclair: Do the Government realise that, in making these representations to the Czechoslovakian Government, they are assuming a heavy moral responsibility?

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the visit of Herr Henlein here during the week-end, does the Minister now admit that there is no such thing as an undesirable alien?

Mr. V. Adams: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that Herr Henlein, the Nazi leader of the dissident German-speaking minority in Czechoslovakia, is visiting this country; whether this visit has any diplomatic significance; whether interviews with responsible Ministers in His Majesty's Government are being accorded to Herr Henlein; and what is the alleged purpose of this visit?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I am aware that Herr Henlein has paid a visit to this country. The visit was, I understand, a purely private one, and Herr Henlein has not been received by any Member of His Majesty's Government. I may add, in particular, that the report of a meeting between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Dominions and Herr Henlein is without foundation.

Mr. Adams: Was he received at the Foreign Office at all?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir.

Mr. Shinwell: Was he seen by Sir Robert Vansittart?

Mr. Butler: I understand that Herr Henlein met Sir Robert Vansittart, with whom he was already acquainted, on a private occasion.

Sir A. Knox: Is it true that Herr Henlein met an obscure group of backbenchers during the weekend?

AUSTRIAN DEBT.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Prime Minister if he can now state whether the £8,000,000 outstanding debt of Austria to this country, repayable by instalment and interest, has now been accepted as an obligation by Germany?

Mr. Butler: On 23rd March His Majesty's Embassy in Berlin were informed that the German Government desired to revise the Anglo-German Payments Agreement of 1st November, 1934, in order to meet the commercial questions arising from the inclusion of Austria in the Reich. On 12th April the German Government were informed in reply that His Majesty's Government were prepared to enter into discussions which would cover both the trade and financial interests of the United Kingdom. It was stated that His Majesty's Government assumed that the German Government accepted full responsibility for all financial liabilities of the former Austrian Government in respect of its external indebtedness. The German Government have now verbally informed His Majesty's Embassy that they are willing to make the problem of Austrian foreign indebtedness one of the subjects of the negotiations which are due to begin on 24th May. His Majesty's Government, for their part, are prepared to take the opportunity afforded by the negotiations to discuss this matter with the German Government, but I ought to make it clear that they consider that the German Government should negotiate arrangements on an international basis providing for payment of all issues of Austrian Government loans.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Have not the debts to the United States already been repudiated by Germany?

Mr. Bellenger: Is the reply from the German Government taken by His Majesty's Government to mean that Germany is not prepared unequivocally to accept responsibility for the Austrian debts to this country?

Mr. Butler: I would prefer the hon. Gentleman to study my statement and to await the negotiations.

Sir Percy Harris: Does not the hon. Gentleman's answer mean that the position of Austria is a matter of negotiation and that it is not automatically accepted by Germany as a liability?

Commander Locker-Lampson: Is this not provisional repudiation?

Mr. George Griffiths: Will the same kind of note be sent to Germany as was sent last week to the Mexican Government?

REFUGEES.

Sir Arnold Wilson: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the number of refugees still needing protection when the Nansen office and the High Commissioner's office in London has been liquidated at the end of the current year is 600,000 and that the problem connected therewith will be intensified by the closing down of the only international body capable of considering the problem in its international aspects; and whether, in these circumstances, he will initiate proposals to defer liquidation for a further 12 months?

Mr. Butler: On 14th May the Council of the League of Nations adopted a report recommending that a single organisation should be set up for a limited period to take the place of the Nansen International Office and the High Commissioner for refugees coming from Germany, which in accordance with the decisions of the Assembly will be discontinued at the end of this year. The report also made recommendations as to the lines on which the new organisation should be constituted. The Council instructed the Secretary-General to prepare for the Assembly, after consultation with the President of the governing body of the Nansen International Office and the High Commissioner for refugees coming from Germany, a detailed plan on the basis of the proposals of the report, and to transmit the report and this detailed plan to the Assembly, which will have to take a decision on the subject at its next ordinary session.

Sir A. Wilson: Does that reply indicate that the Government are prepared to support in principle this new proposal?

Mr. Butler: I think I can say that.

CHINA AND JAPAN.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister the terms of the Chinese note defining China's attitude towards the Anglo-Japanese Agreement relating to the Chinese Customs?

Mr. Butler: I am informed that the Customs arrangement is still being considered by the Chinese National Defence Council and the final attitude of the Chinese Government towards it has not yet been determined. In the meantime a memorandum has been received from the Chinese Embassy reserving on behalf of

the Chinese Government their full rights and freedom of action in matters relating to the Chinese Customs.

Mr. A. Henderson: Were these arrangements entered into by the British and Japanese Governments without any consultation with the Chinese Government?

Mr. Butler: I should require notice of that question.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the greatly increased trafficking in drugs in China by Japanese and Korean traders under the control of the Japanese Government; and whether he will make strong representations to every possible source to prevent a systematic demoralisation of the Chinese people through these means?

Mr. Butler: I have received reports to the effect that recently this traffic has increased considerably, but I have no reason to suppose that this is the outcome of any systematic and deliberate plan. The League of Nations regularly receives information relating to the drug situation in Manchuria, and I believe that to achieve publicity in this way is more productive of results than any other.

Mr. Adams: May I take it that the Govment are very much alive in this matter and are using their strongest representations on the subject?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Government are doing their utmost in this matter.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Have representations been made to the Japanese Government on the matter?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is there not a great deal of evidence to show that the systematic demoralisation referred to is part of a deliberate policy on the part of the Japanese Government?

Mr. Butler: Our information does not bear out the hon. and gallant Gentleman's suggestion.

Sir A. Sinclair: How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile the answer given to the hon. Member above the Gangway that the Government are doing their utmost in the matter with that given to the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) that they have made no representations to the Japanese Government?

Mr. Butler: I said in my original answer that the Government believe that to achieve publicity is more productive of results than anything. I think my answers are therefore quite consistent with each other.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is it not highly desirable that representations should be made to the Japanese Government so that the people of China should not be demoralised?

Mr. Butler: I will certainly consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that in country markets in North China heroin and morphine are being systematically sold under the guise of medicine at prices as low as 1½d. for a packet of heroin; and whether steps are under consideration as to means of controlling the world production and distribution of these drugs?

Mr. Butler: I am aware that these drugs are being sold at very low prices in North China. As regards the world production and distribution of drugs, the hon. Member will be aware that the licit drug traffic is already regulated by the Opium Conventions of 1912, 1925 and 1931, and I can assure him that His Majesty's Government are taking every possible step to control and stamp out the clandestine manufacture and distribution of drugs on their territory. I may add that the appropriate committee of the League is shortly to consider what steps can be taken to limit the cultivation of the raw material from which all drugs are made.

Mr. Adams: In view of the amazing increase in this illicit traffic, will the Government take immediate and practical steps in the matter?

Mr. Butler: I have just said that steps were being taken.

Mr. Moreing: asked the Prime Minister whether the recent appointment of a superintendent of Customs at Shanghai by the administration in Nanking, created by the Japanese Government, has been confirmed by Sir Frederick Maze, the Inspector-General of Chinese Customs; and whether the official appointed will be subordinate to and under the control of the Inspector-General?

Mr. Butler: According to my information, the answer to the question is in the

negative. Superintendents of Customs at ports in China are normally appointed directly by the Ministry of Finance. They are not under the control of the Inspector-General of Customs, although subordinate to him in rank, and their appointments are not confirmed by him.

Mr. Moreing: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a report that the Chinese Superintendent of Customs has been appointed by the puppet administration in Nanking? As we do not recognise that administration, ought we not to refuse to recognise such an appointment, which may have very dangerous results on our trade in Shanghai?

Mr. Butler: I am informed that the same principle which prevailed before prevails now.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

DANUBIAN COUNTRIES.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether, with a view to securing a measure of political and economic appeasement in Central Europe, His Majesty's Government will co-operate with other Governments in order to secure wider markets for the products of the Danubian countries?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Government are always ready to exchange views with other Governments as to any practicable means of promoting political appeasement and economic collaboration, and I can assure the hon. Member that any possibility of the kind referred to will not be overlooked.

Mr. Henderson: Will the Minister bear in mind the statement of the newly appointed Hungarian Prime Minister late on Saturday, in which he said that the Hungarian Government welcomed the growing interest of His Majesty's Government in Central European affairs?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Has there been any largely increased demand for Tokay in Kingswinford?

WEST AFRICA (UNITED KINGDOM EXPORTS).

Mr. Robert Gibson: asked the President of the Board of Trade the amount in quantity and value of the exports of cotton and other (specifying particulars) exports from Great Britain to


British West Africa during each of the last three years and for the current year to date; what steps the Government intend to take to deal with the situation; and whether he has any further statement to make on the subject?

Mr. R. S. Hudson (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): With the hon. and learned Member's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement showing the particulars asked for in the first part of the question. As the hon. and learned Member will be aware, by the beginning of 1938 there had been a serious fall in produce prices which inevitably curtailed the import trade. In addition, there was the dispute between the producers and the buyers of cocoa in the Gold Coast. This dispute

Table showing particulars of the exports of United Kingdom goods consigned to British West Africa during the undermentioned periods, distinguishing the principal commodities.


United Kingdom exports consigned to British West Africa.
Unit of quantity.
1935.
1936.
1937.
Jan.-Mar., 1938.


Quantity.
Declared value.
Quantity.
Declared value.
Quantity.
Declared value.
Quantity.
Declared value.





£'000

£'000

£'000

£'000


Total
…
—
9,300
—
11,393
—
14,255
—
2,052


Of which Tobacco
…
—
275
—
348
—
410
—
77


Iron and steel and m a n u factures thereof.
Ton
43,035
761
53,597
961
68,092
1,554
12,617
315


Machinery
Ton
6,975
672
6,808
775
10,098
1,085
2,551
300


Cotton piece goods
Th. sq. yds.
164,387
3,397
198,799
4,212
178,022
4,422
11,691
305


Other cotton goods
…
—
286
—
281
—
382
—
29


Manufactures of textile materials other than cotton, wool or silk.
…
—
252
—
361
—
535
—
58


Chemicals, drugs, dyes and colours.
…
—
477
—
557
—
633
—
115


Vehicles (including locomotives, ships and aircraft).
…
—
551
—
673
—
1,016
—
148


Note.—The 1937 and 938 figures are provisional.

SPAIN.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Prime Minister whether any reply has been received from the insurgent authorities to the protest against the air attacks on British ships at Valencia?

Mr. Butler: No reply has yet been received.

Mr. Strauss: Is it not clear from the attitude of the insurgent authorities in this respect that some further action is

has fortunately now terminated, and I trust that the restoration of more normal conditions in regard to cocoa will materially improve United Kingdom trade with these Colonies. The hon. and learned Member will also be aware that a Commission appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies has been inquiring into the conditions under which cocoa is marketed in British West Africa.

Mr. Gibson: Do recent events show that the exports are increasing?

Mr. Hudson: I do not know that the trend has yet shown any increase.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in fact, this dispute has not been terminated but only suspended?

Following is the statement:

necessary in order to protect British ships and British seamen from deliberate attacks of this kind?

Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman's question referred to a protest, and I should prefer to await the reply.

Miss Rathbone: Is not British prestige suffering serious damage from the willingness of His Majesty's Government to be content with further protests?

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the success of the Nyon Agreement in stopping the sinking of British merchant ships at sea, he will consider the installation, with the permission of the Spanish Republican Government, of anti-aircraft batteries in Valencia and Barcelona in order to stop the deliberate aircraft attacks on British ships in these ports?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Government are unable to accept the hon. Member's proposal. British anti-aircraft batteries installed in these ports in order to protect British shipping from an air attack would have to fire at all bombing aircraft attacking the ports. They would, therefore, become virtually a part of the local air defences, and, as such, would become open to bombing themselves. It is obvious that the action proposed would involve direct intervention in the conflict in Spain.

Mr. Strauss: As the Government acknowledge that these attacks on British ships are deliberate, surely they would be justified in setting up some defence against these deliberate attacks?

Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft: Is it not a fact that the owners of these ships are aware that they are risking the lives of British sailors, in that they are paying them three times the usual rate; and will not efforts be made to discourage the sustaining of either side by such methods?

Mr. Allan Chapman: asked the Prime Minister what progress has been made with the proposal for the exchange of prisoners between the belligerents in Spain; whether the delay is due to obstruction; and, if so, by whom?

Mr. Butler: Last January His Majesty's Government received the consent of both contending parties to the appointment of a single British arbitrator to conduct the proposed negotiations for an exchange of prisoners, and they were strongly urged by the Spanish Government to take the necessary steps as soon as possible. Both parties were accordingly asked whether the appointment of Field-Marshal Sir Philip Chetwode as arbitrator was acceptable. The consent of General Franco's administration was received on 26th March, but 'the Spanish Government, in a note dated 25th April, indicated that they were no longer agreeable to the appointment of a single arbitrator, and

expressed the desire that an international board should be set up. His Majesty's Government have now pointed out to the Spanish Government the further delays likely to result from this decision, and are at the same time informing them that, in the event of their maintaining their attitude, His Majesty's Government are prepared to submit to General Franco's administration such further proposals as the Spanish Government may have to make for the appointment of the members of the board.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Prime Minister whether any satisfaction has been received from General Franco following the protests of His Majesty's Government in respect of the bombing of British merchant vessels and the killing of British seamen?

Mr. Butler: As I informed the House in the Debate on the Adjournment on 12th May, His Majesty's Government have notified General Franco's administration where they consider claims to lie, and in all cases of deliberate attack they have protested. since detailed claims have not been made, a settlement has not been reached in any case.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not true to say that these British vessels are engaged in trading operations of a perfectly legal character, and that, therefore, those attacks are not in any way justified; and are we to understand from the hon. Gentleman's reply that the Government are satisfied with the reply of General Franco?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir; I said that satisfaction has not yet been obtained, but detailed claims have not been lodged. We have always protested whenever there has been a case of deliberate attack.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the seamen concerned, and the seamen's dependants, receive compensation?

Mr. Butler: I should require notice of that question.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to answer the first supplementary question, as to whether the Government recognise that these ships are engaged on lawful errands?

Mr. Butler: Ships can certainly trade, but His Majesty's Government warn them of the risks of entering ports where hostilities are going on.

Mr. Noel-Baker: In view of the fact that Valencia and Barcelona are far distant from the battle lines, do the Government now regard it as legitimate to bomb such ports, with risk to neutral shipping?

Mr. Butler1: We dislike any sort of aerial bombing, but we are unable to do anything to stop it when it is a case of air raids on military objectives.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Prime Minister whether, following the signature of the Anglo-Italian Agreement, any negotiations or conversations are now proceeding with the Italian Government concerning the evacuation of Italian troops from Spain, and, particularly, for the evacuation of the Italian troops and war material before the termination of the Spanish civil war?

Mr. Butler: Negotiations for the withdrawal of foreign volunteers from Spain at the earliest possible date are proceeding within the Non-Intervention Committee, but I regret that I am not at present in a position to make any further statement on the subject. As regards war material, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 30th March to a question by the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson).

Mr. A. V. Alexander: In view of the situation, are we to understand, from the speech of Signor Mussolini over the weekend, that the Anglo-Italian Treaty was made because the British Government wanted Franco to win, and that negotiations between Italy and France are held up because France does not want Franco to win?

Mr. Speaker: The Under-Secretary cannot be expected to interpret Signor Mussolini's speech.

ASSYRIAN'S (SETTLEMENT).

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the failure of alternative schemes of settlement, an effort will be made to reorganise the Assyrian settlement of the Khabur River, in order to place it on a self-supporting basis?

Mr. Butler: I would remind the hon. Member that in September last the League Council adopted proposals for the re-

organisation of the Khabur settlement on a fully self-supporting basis. The work of reorganisation is now being carried out.

WAR-GAS POISONING (RESEARCH).

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he can give any information in regard to recent research work on sequelae to war-gas poisoning, more especially in regard to deaths from respiratory diseases?

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Ramsbotham): It would be, I am afraid, impracticable to give, within the limits of an oral answer, anything like complete information in regard to the results of research into the effects of the various kinds of gases used in the Great War. My Department is fully alive to these results, and I will gladly arrange for my Chief Medical Officer to see my hon. Friend and explain orally the conclusions of the research that has been done, so far as they affect my Department.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: Is my hon. Friend aware that recent evidence shows that the mortality rates in certain age groups of cases of war-gas poisoning ranges from 4o per cent. to 70 per cent. over the normal rate; and, in view of this, will he consider a revision of the War Pensions Acts?

Mr. Ramsbotham: The question on the Paper relates to research; and, as I have said, I cannot describe what has been done within the limits of question and answer.

UNSALARIED CONSULAR OFFICERS (NATIONALITY).

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department the number of British unsalaried consular officers who are not British subjects?

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 21st March.

Mr. Day: Will the Minister say whether since then he has received any complaint to the effect that many of these officers have so much private work to do that they cannot give time to British interests?

Mr. Hudson: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

ALLOTMENTS.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Agriculture (1) whether he has given consideration to the leaflet N issued by the National Allotments Society; and what steps are to be taken to implement the policy advocated in the leaflet;
(2) whether he is aware of the continued decline in the number of allotments being worked and of the insecure tenure; and will he introduce legislation to encourage the allotment holders and assist the local authorities and associations of holders to acquire land permanently;
(3) whether he is aware that allotments produce £8,000,000 worth of fruit and vegetables per annum, and that this production could be increased if more security of tenure was given to the holders; and will he make a statement of the Government's proposals for dealing with this national need?

Sir Francis Fremantle: asked the Minister of Agriculture (1) whether he is aware that, as a result of frequent and recurring disturbances of allotment tenancies there is a definite retrogression in allotment cultivation; and whether he is taking any steps to encourage allotment holders by obtaining for them greater security of tenure;
(2) having regard to the great contribution to national fitness and safety made by fresh fruit and vegetables, to the value of approximately £8,000,000 per annum, produced by allotment-holders, what action he will take to encourage the cultivation of allotments and gardens?

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Minister of Agriculture the average number of allotments in cultivation during each of the past three years; whether he has any statement to make regarding the causes producing the fall in the number of such allotments; and what proposals he has to check the fall and to extend the area of land under allotment cultivation?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I have received the circular letter and leaflet recently issued by the National Allotments Society. While I am not aware of any official estimate of the annual value of the produce of allotments, they constitute an important source of food supply as well as providing a healthy and useful form of recreation. Complete

statistics as to the number of allotments in the past three years are not available, but the estimated total numbers of allotment-holders in England and Wales in urban areas at 31st December, 1935 and 1936, were 611,900 and 606,000 respectively, and the provisional figure now available for 31st December, 1937, is 592,500. The decline in the number of allotments is due mainly to the demand for land for other purposes in urban areas, particularly for housing. Local authorities possess ample powers of land purchase for allotments. I have impressed on them the importance which the Government attach to the provision of an adequate number of permanent allotments, and shall continue to do so. The society's proposals regarding the acquisition of further land and the provision of greater security of tenure for allotment-holders would require legislation, and, in this connection, I would refer hon. Members to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Hollins) on 5th May.

Sir F. Fremantle: Is it not the case that arrangements have been suggested for the inclusion of allotments in town planning schemes, and that has not been very much availed of; and will my right hon. Friend consult with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health to see that more use is made of this, in the way of getting permanent provision in town plans?

Mr. Morrison: I understand that a number of local authorities have included permanent provision for allotments in their town plans, and this is under my constant attention.

Sir F. Fremantle: Is it under the constant attention of the Department concerned with town planning schemes?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir. We are working in collaboration.

Mr. R. Gibson: Is it not possible, under existing arrangements, where land, at present used for allotments, is taken by a local authority for housing purposes, to make such acquisition subject to the provision that alternative land shall be given for allotments if required?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir. I have power to require local authorities to provide alternative accommodation when allotments land is taken for building; and only


in cases where no alternative land is available for housing and it is absolutely necessary, is my consent given. In every case I have urged upon local authorities the need for alternative accommodation.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Will the Minister look into the difficulty local authorities are having in urban areas in obtaining land for allotments, particularly in view of the constant pressure upon local authorities to keep rates down and the fact that much of the land available can be obtained only at quite prohibitive prices?.

Mr. Morrison: That is covered by the statutory powers which many local authorities possess.

POULTRY INDUSTRY.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will take steps to prevent day- or week-old cockerels from hatcheries being sold as pullet chicks?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I have no power to take any steps to prevent sales of this kind. I am advised that the law provides adequate remedies for a purchaser who is aggrieved by any such sale.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend aware of how very prevalent this practice is, and is he aware that the female of the species is far more valuable than the male?

Mr. Morrison: I have received on complaints of that kind, but complaints have been made to me that day-old chicks which are sold as hatched, frequently contain an undue preponderance of one sex or the other.

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, and, if so, when, he proposes to call a conference of those concerned in the poultry industry, to bring their discussions to the point of evolving an acceptable egg-marketing scheme?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: Consultations have recently been held with bodies representative of egg producers and distributors, respectively, and satisfactory progress has been made. A joint conference may be desirable at a later stage, but I am unable to make any further statement at present.

Sir P. Hurd: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the difficulty which has been created in the poultry industry by the

long period of the discussions; and is it possible to expedite the matter?

Mr. Morrison: I hope to be able to make a statement on this matter as soon as possible.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Are we to understand that these negotiations will include poultry keepers in Scotland?

Mr. Morrison: I will consider that. It includes also a great section of the distributive trade and other bodies who have been consulted.

Mr. Macquisten: Will the scheme provide that the poultry men in Cowal are to send their eggs across the Clyde to Greenock to a central store and that the eggs are to be re-issued and sent back across the Clyde again to the shopkeepers there, as was provided in the first scheme, or will they be left their freedom to sell to their own customers, who know them and trust their eggs?

AGRICULTURAL LAND (DIVERTED ACREAGE).

Sir P. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture how much agricultural land has been put out of cultivation in the past two years by urban encroachments and by appropriation for military or other Government purposes?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: It it estimated that in the 24 months in question, of a net decrease of 154,136 acres in the total area of agricultural land, about half was diverted to building and other development and about 24,000 acres were utilised for military or other Government purposes. I have no information to show what proportion of this diverted acreage consisted of cultivated land.

Sir P. Hurd: Is due care taken, in connection with these acquisitions, to consult with the local agricultural authorities, in order to see whether alternative land is available?

Mr. Morrison: With regard to housing development, the matter is looked at from the point of view of Defence and from the point of view of the community in placing houses. There is consultation with the agricultural authorities.

Mr. T. Williams: Is the Minister aware that some of the finest agricultural land has been appropriated in the last few


years for military purposes, and does he not think more care should be exercised in the appropriation of land for those purposes?

Mr. Morrison: I would not agree that due care is not exercised. When land of that character is needed for military purposes there is consultation, so that military needs may be met with the least possible disturbance of agricultural requirements.

CREDITS.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has any proposals in view for improving credit facilities for farmers?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: As regards longterm credit, I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies given to my hon. Friend the Member for Evesham (Mr. De la Bère) on 8th July, 1937, and my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Liddall) on 3rd December, 1936. In regard to short-term credit, as I have previously stated in the House, I understand that the question is under consideration by the National Farmers' Union, but that up to the present they have not been in a position to submit a proposal in detail.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend aware of what the Treasury did in December, 1935? Is he aware that they lent the four main line railways £26,500,000 at 2½ per cent. interest, guaranteed as to principal and interest? Why cannot agriculture have the same?

WARBLE FLY DRESSING ORDER (PROSECUTIONS).

Mr. Graham White: asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of prosecutions which have taken place for noncompliance with the Warble Fly Dressing Order?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The Warble Fly (Dressing of Cattle) Order of 1936 is required to be enforced by the local authorities by whom any legal proceedings would normally be taken. Notification has been received of eight prosecutions undertaken by local authorities during 1936, the first year of the operation of the Order, and of 51 prosecutions during 1937. Details of any prosecutions in respect of the current year have not yet been received from local authorities.

POST OFFICE (CONTRACT MAIL VANS).

Mr. Day: asked the Postmaster-General what is the number of Royal Mail vans used by the Post Office that are owned by private contractors; the contract price paid for the hire of these vans; and are the drivers the direct employés of the private contractors or the Post Office?

The Postmaster-General (Major Tryon): The information asked for in the first part of the hon. Member's question is not readily available. With regard to the second part, I regret that I cannot depart from the established practice of regarding contract prices as confidential. It is the usual arrangement for contract vans to be driven by direct employés of the contractor.

Mr. Day: Is there a Fair-Wages Clause in those contracts?

Major Tryon: Yes, Sir.

DEFENCE (APPEALS TO CIVILIANS).

Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyle: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the appeals being issued by Government Departments and local authorities for volunteers to assist in various forms of Defence; and whether, in view of the multiplicity of appeals to civilians for this purpose, he will set up a central authority to co-ordinate such appeals and allocate the responses in order of priority and suitability of those responding?

The Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence (Sir Thomas Inskip): There is already an Inter-Departmental Committee whose duties include the general co-ordination of Departmental activities of the sort referred to by my hon. Friend. I have arranged that attention should be given at once by the Committee to my hon. Friend's suggestion.

KENYA (GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS, NATIVE EMPLOYES).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion. Affairs whether he will consider instituting the payment of wages weekly to the native employés in the employ of Government Departments in Kenya?

The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): My Noble Friend is not aware that there is any general dissatisfaction with the system of monthly payments, but he is communicating the hon. Member's suggestion to the Governor for his consideration.

Mr. Creech Jones: Will the Minister make representations along these lines, particularly in view of the very bad effect of the present system because so many of the natives fall into debt and other bad results follow?

Mr. MacDonald: As I have said, the hon. Member's suggestion has been sent for the consideration of the Governor.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Will not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the lending of money or the supplying of goods on credit should be made illegal?

Mr. MacDonald: That is another question.

JAMAICA (SOCIAL CONDITIONS).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what further reports he has recently received from the Governor of Jamaica on the poor nutrition, bad housing, and intense poverty of masses of people in Jamaica and regarding the underfeeding and undernourishment of children; and what immediate steps are being taken to deal with the causes of the present social and economic distress?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I would refer to the reply given by my Noble Friend on 23rd February to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers). No further reports have been received since then. With regard to the second part of the question, the Government of Jamaica is endeavouring by various means to stimulate the local production of milk and other animal and vegetable products of high nutritive value. Practical education on proper nutrition is now being given at a number of schools throughout the island, at which midday meals are provided for the children.

Mr. Creech Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman notice that I am not dealing with industrial effects but social effects, and has he not received representations from the Governor in view of the statement which was made in this House that

very few of the children in Jamaica were undernourished and underfed? Has any correction been made of that statement to the Governor because of the enormous trouble that may be created in the Island?

Mr. MacDonald: The hon. Gentleman asks what reports have been received recently. The answer is that no further report has been received since my Noble Friend answered on a previous occasion.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Has the right hon. Gentleman had access to the Press this morning where he will notice that serious trouble is likely to arise in Jamaica?

Mr. MacDonald: I think that the position is no doubt food for thought in many ways, but if the hon. Member is going to believe everything in the Press this morning he will be very much misled on many questions.

SIERRA LEONE (" AFRICAN SENTINEL ").

Mr. David Adams: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is aware that 2,000 copies of the "African Sentinel," fourth edition, have been taken possession of by the authorities in Sierra Leone; why this detention has been made; and whether he will take steps to release these issues and see that African people enjoy the right of free expression of opinion?

Mr. M. MacDonald: My Noble Friend has received no information from the Governor as to the detention of this publication. Inquiry will be made on the subject and the hon. Member will be communicated with when the Governor's report has been received.

Mr. Adams: Is the Minister aware that this publication is printed in this country and is available on railway bookstalls and that it advocates nothing but peaceful methods of advance for the coloured people?

Mr. MacDonald: The question deals only with certain actions which have been taken in the Colony, and the answer is, therefore, necessarily confined to that aspect of the matter.

Mr. Creech Jones: Is the Minister aware that the right hon. Gentleman, his colleague, promised to make investigations in respect to a previous suppression


of this publication, and is this strictly in conformity with the declaration of the Colonial Secretary that this country stands for the free, unfettered and fearless expression of different points of view?

Mr. MacDonald: My right hon. Friend made the inquiries he promised to make and he has not yet received an answer as a result of those inquiries, but as soon as the answer comes the hon. Member will be informed.

Mr. Adams: Arising out of my supplementary question—

Mr. Speaker: rose —

COLONIES (EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he will take immediate steps to abolish the employment of children in industry and agriculture in the British Colonies; and what steps are being taken to raise the age from 10 in Kenya, from 12 in Uganda and Northern Rhodesia to 14?

Mr. M. MacDonald: No, Sir. My Noble Friend is satisfied that in those Dependencies where the age limits permitted by law or custom for the employment of children are lower than those prescribed in the respective International Labour Conventions, the lower age is justified by local circumstances. The second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. Creech Jones: Are we to understand that, in the discussions which are shortly to take place at Geneva, on the making of a new International Labour Convention, the policy of the Government will be the maintenance of employment for children at the age of 10 in Kenya, and the age of 12 in Northern Rhodesia and Uganda? What will be the policy of the Government in respect of that matter?

Mr. MacDonald: I would point out that in the case of industrial employment in Kenya the minimum age is not 10 years but 12, and it has always been customary in the discussions at Geneva to permit of exceptions in cases where local circumstances would justify them.

Mr. Creech Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the age has recently been reduced from 12 in Kenya?

Mr. Macquisten: In the semi-tropical countries, does not physical and mental development occur very much quicker?

BRITISH GUIANA.

Mr. Paling: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs how many East Indians are resident in British Guiana; how many of these are unemployed; and what measures are taken to relieve those who are destitute?

Mr. M. MacDonald: The total number of East Indians resident in British Guiana is 142,978. My Noble Friend understands that there is very little actual unemployment among East Indians, though there has been in some cases curtailment in the number of days per week when employment is available. As regards the last part of the question, destitute East Indians are given poor relief in the same manner as the rest of the community.

Mr. Paling: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs how many estates have been rendered derelict in the last ten years in British Guiana; and what acreage such estates represent?

Mr. MacDonald: According to information which my Noble Friend has obtained from the Governor of British Guiana, five sugar estates of a total acreage of 6,579 have gone out of cultivation since 1928. At the time of the abandonment of these estates only 1,381 acres were actually in cultivation.

Mr. Paling: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what is his attitude towards the proposal made by the Government of India to appoint an agent or commissioner to represent the special interests of the East Indian population in British Guiana?

Mr. MacDonald: My Noble Friend has not received any formal proposal on this subject from the Government of India: nor, as indicated in his reply on 14th February to a question by the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones), has he received any representations from the Indian community in British Guiana on the subject.

MADEIRA (BRITISH VISITORS, CUSTOMS DUTIES).

Mr. Remer: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention


has been called to the difficulty which British visitors to Madeira have in ascertaining what are the Customs duties on goods imported to that island; that the duty sometimes amounts to three to five times the value of the goods; that the Customs authorities at Madeira cannot give any information as to duty except by reference to Lisbon and that any remission of these duties generally takes a period of six months; and whether he will make representations to the Portuguese Government as to the desirability of supplying Madeira Customs authorities with the fullest information as to a reasonable Customs rate?

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I understand that visitors' luggage is admitted into Madeira free of duty and that the definition of luggage adopted is not restrictive. No difficulties of the kind referred to have been reported to the Board of Trade, but if my hon. Friend will give me particulars the matter will be looked into.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

PAUPER CASES (COURTS SHORTHAND WRITERS' FEES).

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Lord Advocate whether he will ascertain how the cost of shorthand-writers' services in pauper cases, civil and criminal, respectively, are met in the English High Court and county courts, respectively; and whether he has any statement to make regarding the meeting of such costs incurred in the Court of Session, High Court and sheriff courts in Scotland, respectively, out of public funds?

The Lord Advocate (Mr. T. M. Cooper): I am sending to the hon. and learned Gentleman the information which I have been able to obtain in answer to the first part of the question. The answer to the second part is in the negative.

Mr. Gibson: In regard to the latter part of the question, is it not the case that in Scotland in criminal trials in the sheriff court and in the High Court, both in poor and in other causes, shorthand-writers' costs are borne by the State, and is he aware that participation in those costs is not available to all shorthand-writers, and that there is an acute sense of dissatisfaction among shorthand-writers who do not participate in those costs but

who have to do the work gratuitously in poor civil causes?

The Lord Advocate: I suggest that the hon. and learned Member should await the receipt of my letter and then confer with me on the subject.

ASYLUMS (PATIENTS' MAINTENANCE).

Mr. T. Johnston: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can give any explanation as to why the general weekly rate for patients at the Dundee Royal Asylum is 5os., whereas at Montrose Royal Asylum the weekly rate is 21S. 6d.; and why the weekly cost of patients in lunatic wards of poorhouses should vary from 8s. 5d. in Buchan to 25S. 8d. in Govan?

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn): The rates mentioned are minimum rates. The Dundee Royal Asylum is a relatively small institution, catering for a limited class of patient, whereas Montrose Royal Asylum caters for a wider range. With regard to the second part of the question, lunatic wards of poorhouses are generally intended to accommodate persons who are not dangerous and who do not require curative treatment such as may be needed in an asylum. The Govan Poorhouse, however, which is known as the Southern General Hospital, is run on hospital lines, with much more expensive equipment and staffing, and the lunatic wards there, which have facilities for treating cases which might otherwise require to be sent to an asylum, approximate more closely than in any other poorhouse to conditions in district asylums.

Mr. Johnston: May I ask whether the Secretary of State for Scotland is satisfied with the great disparity in costs which are observable in the general report of the Board of Control?

Mr. Wedderburn: I can only answer the question on the Order Paper. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put down another question if he desires further information.

Mr. Johnston: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can give any explanation of the disparities in the costs of providing butter in the district asylums of Scotland, in view of the fact that the cost is 4s. 9d. in Aberdeen,


18s rod. in Argyll, 4s. 6d. in Edinburgh, and 19s. 5d. in Perth?

Mr. Wedderburn: Butter and margarine are used in varying proportions in the different district asylums, and accordingly where a large porportion of butter is used the cost under that head is high and the cost of margarine correspondingly low, and vice versa. In Perth the amount of margarine used is nil and in Argyll almost nil, whereas in Aberdeen and Edinburgh the cost per head for margarine is 8s. 7d. and 12s. 5d. respectively. It rests with local authorities to decide to what extent butter or margarine should be included in the dietary of asylums.

Mr. Johnston: Have the Scottish Office or the Secretary of State for Scotland no power whatever to encourage the use of butter as against margarine in these institutions?

Mr. Wedderburn: No, Sir; that is a matter for the local authority. The General Board of Control states that in their view the dietary is generally satisfactory.

Mr. Lipson: Cannot the term "mental hospital" be extended to Scotland?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

TRANSFEREE'S ENLISTMENT.

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Minister of Labour where Wilfred Weaver, of Stainforth, was sent from the Thorne Exchange under the transference scheme; what kind of work or training he was doing when he enlisted in the Army; and why the Exchange officials who returned the boy's insurance cards to his parents refused to state where the boy was stationed?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): The necessary inquiries into this case are in progress. I will write to the hon. Member when they are complete.

Mr. Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why inquiries are taking so long, and may I ask how it is that when boys 16 years of age are taken from their homes the Exchange officials return their cards to their parents without any explanation as to their whereabouts?

Mr. Brown: I think the hon, Member had better await the result of my inquiries. From the preliminary inquiry that I have made this seems to be a very interesting case.

Mr. Williams: In the meantime while inquiries are being made will the right hon. Gentleman instruct his Exchange officials that where a boy departs in these circumstances they shall give the parents full information?

Mr. Brown: I am not admitting that the circumstances are as stated in the question. I must complete my inquiries.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Is it not the case that the Army will not release him because they say he has cost so much?

NORMANTON, CASTLEFORD AND PONTEFRACT.

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons and age group, registered as unemployed at Normanton, Castleford, and Pontefract at the latest date available; and the comparable figures for 1936 and 1933?

Mr. E. Brown: I am having the figures extracted, and will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

MENTAL TREATMENT (VOLUNTARY PATIENTS).

Mr. Lyons: asked the Minister of Health (I) whether he is satisfied that local authorities are making adequate use of their powers under the Mental Treatment Act, 1930, to provide proper hospital treatment for mild mental cases which will not entail detention in lunacy;
(2) whether he is aware of the unnecessary suffering which may be caused to persons afflicted with mild mental disorder who seek voluntary treatment and who thus have to enter lunatic asylums; and whether he will consider what steps can be taken to ensure other residential treatment in the circumstances?

The Minister of Health (Sir Kingsley Wood): Many local authorities are providing for the treatment of voluntary patients by the establishment at their mental hospitals of admission units, which are separate from the main institution but where all the resources of the


hospital can be applied to the treatment of early cases. The number of persons presenting themselves for voluntary treatment at public mental hospitals has grown every year since the Mental Treatment Act came into force. Last year the voluntary admissions amounted to 8,414, which was 31.3 per cent. of the total admissions to those institutions.

Mr. Lyons: Can my right hon. Friend say how many local authorities have added to their establishments in the way he has indicated?

Sir K. Wood: I should be glad to inquire, and I will inform my hon. and learned Friend.

Mrs. Tate: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the real difficulty is that there is an acute shortage of Medical men trained in the treatment of these cases, that one of the few clinics for training medical men in this way is the Tavistock Clinic, which is only supported by voluntary contributions, and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is an urgent need for a larger supply of trained medical men?

Mr. Sorensen: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the hon. and learned Member who asked the question that lunatic asylums do not now exist, but that they are called mental hospitals?

Sir F. Fremantle: Does the right hon. Gentleman's reply include any statement as regards the invaluable out-patients' departments that are being established?

FORESHORE DEVELOPMENT.

Mr. MacLaren: asked the Minister of Health what action he proposes to take to save the coastline from disfigurement by bungalow development and to prohibit sales of foreshore to speculators?

Sir K. Wood: Local authorities have power under the Planning Act to control development along the sea coast, but if the hon. Member will inform me of any particular area which he has in mind I will look into the position.

Mr. MacLaren: I will forward to my right hon. Friend the information that I have. Arising out of his reply, may I say that I hope the Minister will take action, as this matter amounts to a public scandal?

Miss Rathbone: Will the Minister issue some report showing which local authorities, or what proportion of local authorities, are making use of their powers in this respect?

Sir K. Wood: I believe that information is in the annual report of the Ministry, but I will take note of the hon. Lady's question.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of making inquiry into the working of the Planning Act, which is almost universally inoperative?

Sir K. Wood: I cannot assent to that suggestion for a moment. A great deal has been done under the Act, and I think due credit ought to be given to those authorities, especially the joint authorities, which have done such good work. I should like to see more work done, but I do not think it is fair to suggest that a good deal has not already been done.

Sir P. Harris: Will the right hon. Gentleman put more driving force into this Act, and use some of his publicity gifts?

Mr. H. G. Williams: Does the foreshore which is under the sea for 12 hours out of the 24, come under town planning?

Sir K. Wood: I will examine that very carefully.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (COST).

Mr. H. G. Williams: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education on what estimate of expenditure per child in average attendance the estimates for elementary education for 1938–39 were prepared by his Department; and what percentage increase this represents on the expenditure per child in 1928–29?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): The estimated expenditure per child in average attendance in public elementary schools for 1938–39 was obtained by dividing the estimated expenditure of local education authorities on elementary education by the average number of children estimated to be in attendance. The Board's estimate of the total expenditure of the authorities for this purpose was based on the forecasts


of expenditure from the individual authorities and also on returns relating to their expenditure in previous years. The estimated cost per child in 1938–39 is £16 7s. 1d. as compared with £12 10s. 5d. in 1928–29—an increase of 30.6 per cent.

Mr. Williams: Is the hon. Member satisfied that every child is 30 per cent. better educated now than 10 years ago?

Sir William Davison: Can the hon. Member say why the overhead cost of education in this country is so much higher than in France or Germany where the result is very good?

Mr. Lindsay: The answer to the two supplementary questions is that the increase is due partly to the improvement in the quality of teaching, partly to reorganisation and partly to the growth of special services, the cost of which has nearly doubled. Those are the three main reasons.

Sir John Haslam: Has not the hon. Member missed one important point—the increase in the provided schools and the decrease in the non-provided schools?

Mr. Lindsay: I would not like to give a categorical answer to that supplementary question, but I think it is partly true.

Mr. H. G. Williams: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education what was the percentage increase in the cost of elementary education per child for the latest year for which the figures are available as compared with the figures for the year 10 years before; and what percentage change in the cost of living took place over the same 10-year period?

Mr. Lindsay: The cost of elementary education per child in 1936–37, the latest year for which figures are available, was £15 4s. 5d. as compared with £11 16s. 8d. in 1926–27—an increase of 28.6 per cent. The percentage increase in the cost of living—over that in 1914—averaged 48 in 1936–37 as compared with 72 in 1926–27.

Mr. Williams: Can the hon. Member say why there has been this vast increase in the cost of education over this period when the general cost of living has fallen substantially?

Mr. Lindsay: The reason for the increase I have given in reply to a supplementary question. In the second place,

there is no distinct relation between the increase and the fall in the cost of living. It shows that, despite the fall in the cost of living, we have been able to keep up the social services.

Mr. Montague: Can the hon. Member give us any idea how much it costs to educate a child in a public school, and in a private school?

Mr. Lindsay: That does not arise on this question.

PROPOSED SENIOR SCHOOL, BEARE GREEN.

Mr. Thurtle: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he has considered the petition signed by numerous parents concerning the provision of a senior mixed elementary school at Beare Green; and what is the view of his Department regarding the points established in the petition?

Mr. Lindsay: The Board of Education have considered the representations which were addressed to them against the proposal to provide a new senior public elementary school at Beare Green. After carefully examining all the considerations, both for and against the proposal, they have decided to allow it.

PROPOSED NON-PROVIDED SENIOR SCHOOL, TILFORD.

Mr. Thurtle: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he has considered an appeal with over 37o signatures from ratepayers in the area of Tilford, Surrey, against the proposed new central elementary Church of England school at Tilford, to provide for the senior scholars of five parishes; whether an inquiry under Section 18 of the Education Act, 1921, is being held; and whether the request for a local public inquiry will be granted?

Mr. Lindsay: The Board have received an extensively signed appeal against the proposal to provide a new Church of England senior school at Tilford. In accordance with their practice they have given the proposers and the local education authority the opportunity of making observations on the appellants' representations. As soon as these are received the Board will consider the matter with all possible despatch, but my Noble Friend cannot at this stage anticipate the result of this consideration.

Mr. Thurtle: Can the hon. Member give an assurance that he will not allow the parsons of the district to fasten this school on the great majority of the ratepayers?

Mr. Lindsay: I would rather not anticipate the result of the inquiry.

TERRITORIAL ARMY (ACCOMMODATION).

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the inadequacy of the schedule of accommodation for units of the Territorial Army, he will consider revising the schedule?

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Sir Victor Warrender): Territorial Army schedules of accommodation comprise broadly training, office and store, and social accommodation. I assume my hon. Friend has the last of these in mind. The schedule of social accommodation has been very recently revised, and, in the case of new buildings where it has been applied, it has been the subject of much favourable comment.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the hon. Member not aware that, broadly speaking, the drill halls in this country are very unsatisfactory, and is he not aware that what is wanted are bigger and brighter drill halls?

BRITISH ARMY (HORSES).

Mr. Lyons: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the remount department of His Majesty's Army is still engaged in the preparation of a census of horses for cavalry purposes; and why such a census is being taken in view of the general development of mechanisation in the Army?

Sir V. Warrender: The last census of horses was undertaken in 1934, and no fresh census is contemplated. My hon. and learned Friend presumably has in mind the annual classification and registration of horses suitable for military purposes undertaken in Commands, and this must be continued as long as horses are likely to be required on mobilization. The volume of work is naturally diminishing.

WORKMEN'S TOOLS (THEFTS, LONDON).

Mr. McEntee: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department

whether he is aware of the continually increasing number of thefts of workmen's tools from buildings in course of construction and from joiners' shops in the Metropolitan police area; and whether, in view of the few cases in which these tools are traced or a conviction of the thieves secured, he will issue special instructions to the police to make greater efforts to trace the disposal of stolen tools, some of which are held in pledge by pawnbrokers, and nearly all of which are stamped with their owner's name?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): There are no available figures to show whether thefts of this kind are increasing, but the Commissioner—with whom my right hon. Friend has been in consultation—agrees that such thefts are not infrequent. The police are already alive to the matter and will continue to do what is possible in the way of prevention and detection.

Mr. McEntee: Is the Under-Secretary aware that the societies which provide workmen's tools have an increasing amount each year to pay, and that, in fact, every one of these tools is stamped with the owner's name, and, therefore, there ought to be no difficulty in tracing them? They are very rarely traced.

Mr. Lloyd: The police are giving close attention to this matter, and if the hon. Member will give us any information I will be glad to receive it.

Mr. Logan: Will the Under-Secretary draw attention to the fact that it is neglect on the part of these people to leave their tools hanging about and will he advise workmen to take care of their tools?

Mr. Macquisten: Would it not be better to put in front of their names "Stolen from." No one would take them in such circumstances. I do that with my umbrella.

GREAT BRITAIN AND MEXICO.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher (by Private Notice): asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make concerning the decision of Mexico to sever diplomatic relations with this country and what action it is proposed to take.

Mr. Butler: On nth May His Majesty's Government presented a note to the


Mexican Government in which they requested payment of an instalment provided for in the Anglo-Mexican Special Claims Convention which was now some months overdue, particularly as the Mexican Government had punctually discharged a similar debt to the United States Government. His Majesty's Government also considered it material to draw attention to the general state of Mexican Government indebtedness both internal and external in view of recent Mexican Government action in incurring a heavy additional liability by expropriating the foreign-owned oilfields in Mexico on the basis of a promise to pay full and adequate compensation which must amount to a very large sum. On 14th May, following the payment of the sum requested, the Mexican Minister in London delivered a note to His Majesty's Government stating that, in consideration of their attitude towards the Mexican Government in regard to the expropriation of the oilfields, he had been instructed to close the Legation and to leave the country. The note added that the Mexican Consul-General in London would assume charge of the archives without diplomatic status. In view of this communication, His Majesty's Minister at Mexico City informed the Mexican Government on the same day that His Majesty's Government had decided to withdraw him from Mexico with his diplomatic staff and to place His Majesty's Legation in the charge of a consular officer. His Majesty's Government can only express their surprise and regret at the decision of the Mexican Government. I cannot at present forecast any further action which may be taken, but His Majesty's Government will naturally continue to use their best endeavours to protect the substantial British commercial interests in Mexico.

Mr. Bellenger: Did I hear the hon. Member correctly that His Majesty's Government had called the Mexican Government's attention to the internal expenditure of that country? Is that customary in diplomatic notes? Is it not a breach of diplomatic etiquette?

Mr. Butler: In view of the liabilities incurred by the Mexican Government His Majesty's Government thought it was material to draw attention to the internal indebtedness as well as to the external indebtedness of the Mexican Government,

as both these facts would affect their ability to pay.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask whether at any time the Government of the United States of America called the attention of His Majesty's Government to their internal indebtedness?

Mr. David Grenfell: Will the Under-Secretary inform the House whether His Majesty's Government were equally prompt of making similar representations to Italy, who owe us commercial debts for coal, and who are incurring internal debts as well?

Mr. Maxton: Does the hon. Member think it is worth while to add another to the hostile nations of this country for the sake of a few thousand pounds?

Mr. Thurtle: Does the hon. Member think that a Note which contained offensive and hectoring phrases is likely to conduce to good feeling?

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is it the case that the specific reason given by the Mexican Government for breaking off diplomatic relations is the attitude taken up by His Majesty's Government in regard to the oilfields of Mexico?

Mr. Butler: The specific point on which the action was taken was in regard to the expropriation of the oilfields and His Majesty's Government's attitude in regard to that.

Mr. H. G. Williams: In connection with these negotiations, has my hon. Friend received any information from the Mexican Government that they were satisfied that, whatever they did, they would have the support of the Opposition in this country?

Mr. A. Henderson: Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance to the House that His Majesty's Government will not allow any considerations of amour proper to stand in the way of their attempting to secure an early and friendly settlement of this regrettable dispute?

Mr. Butler: I hope that any efforts we make will be supported in all quarters of the House.

Mr. De la Bère: Is not the attitude of the Mexican Government thoroughly unsatisfactory?

NOTICES OF MOTIONS.

Mr. Emrys-Evans: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask you a question of which I have given you Private Notice, namely, whether you will give instructions that in future the names of all Members supporting a Motion, and not only a certain number of them, shall appear on the Order Paper whenever a Motion is set down?

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid I do not see any necessity for altering the present procedure, which is that the names of all the Members supporting a Motion are put down on its first appearance on the Paper, and on subsequent occasions, only the first six are printed.

Mr. Emrys-Evans: Could you not take some steps in order to prevent any misapprehensions arising in regard to the continued support of a Motion by Members whose names do not appear on the Paper?

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid I cannot deal with apprehensions.

Mr. Denman: Would it not be possible to add a note "and so many other Members"? The House would then have some knowledge of the extent of the support which the Motion carries.

Mr. Speaker: That would need consideration. Names might be added or taken away.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: In the event of your taking that into account, Mr. Speaker, will you also consider adding the names of the parties to which the respective Members belong?

Mr. Speaker: I am not sure to which party every hon. Member belongs.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the Prime Minister's absence, the reason for which we regret, for what purpose the suspension of the 11 o'Clock Rule is being moved?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): We desire to obtain the Committee stage of the Housing (Rural Workers) Amendment Bill, and the Second Reading of the Welsh Church (Amendment) Bill, which comes from another place. We hope also to obtain the Patents, etc. (International Conventions) Bill, which also comes from another place, and which is the third Order, but it is not our intention to move this Order at a late hour.

Motion made, and Question put,
 That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Sir J. Simon.]

The House divided: Ayes, 210; Noes, 107.

Division No. 202.]
AYES.
[3.50 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Erskine-Hill, A. G.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Channon, H.
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Fleming, E. L.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (So'h Univ's)
Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Fox, Sir G. W. G.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Chorlton, A. E. L.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.


Assheton, R.
Clarke, Frank (Dartford)
Gluckstein, L. H.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Goldie, N. B.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Clarry, Sir Reginald
Grant-Ferris, R.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Grattan-Deyle, Sir N.


Balniel, Lord
Colman, N. C. D.
Gridley, Sir A. B.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Grimston, R. V.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Cox, H. B. Trevor
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)


Bernays, R. H.
Cranborne, Viscount
Guinness, T. L. E. B.


Bossom, A. C.
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.


Boulton, W. W.
Crooke, Sir J S.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Crossley, A. C.
Hannah, I. C.


Brass, Sir W.
Davidson, Viscountess
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Davison, Sir W. H.
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
De Chair, S. S.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)


Brown, RL Hon. E. (Leith)
De la Bère, R.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.


Bull, B. B.
Danville, Alfred
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Dower, Major A. V. G.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Burton, Col. H. W.
Duggan, H. J.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Holmes, J. S.


Cary, R. A.
Elmley, Viscount
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Hopkinson, A.




Horsbrugh, Florence
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel Sir T. C. R.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Moreing, A. C.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Spans, W. P.


Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Hulbert, N. J.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Stewart, J. Henderson (File, E.)


Hunter, T.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Hurd, Sir P. A.
Munro, P.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Joel, D. J. B.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Taskar, Sir R. I.


Keeling, E. H.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Tate, Mavis C.


Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Patrick, C. M.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Peters, Dr. S. J.
Touche, G. C.


Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Leech, Sir J. W.
Ramsbotham, H.
Wakefield, W. W.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Levy, T.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Lewis, O.
Rayner, Major R. H.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Lindsay, K. M.
Remer, J. R.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Lipson, D. L.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Warrender, Sir V.


Lloyd, G. W.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Wayland, Sir W. A


Lyons, A. M.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Russell, Sir Alexander
Wells, S. R.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


McKie, J. H.
Salmon, Sir I.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Samuel, M. R. A.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Macnamara, Major J. R. J.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.
Wise, A. R.


Macquisten, F. A.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Sandys, E. D.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Scott, Lord William
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Selley, H. R.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Shaw. Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Young, A. S. L. (Partiek)


Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)



Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Mr. James Stuart and Captain Dugdale.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'[...]sbr.)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Sexton, T. M.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hardie, Agnes
Shinwell, E.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Silverman, S. S.


Banfield, J. W.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Simpson, F. B.


Barnes, A. J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Barr, J.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Batey, J.
Hopkin, D.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Bellenger, F. J.
Jagger, J.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Leas- (K'ly)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Benson, G.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Sorensen, R. W.


Broad, F. A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stephen, C.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Kelly, W. T.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Cove, W. G.
Lawson, J J.
Summerskill, Edith


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Leach, W.
Thorne, W.


Daggar, G.
Leslie, J. R.
Thurtle, E.


Delton, H
Logan, D. G.
Tinker, J. J.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lunn, W.
Tomlinson, G.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Viant, S. P.


Day, H.
McEntee, V. La T.
Walkden, A. G.


Ede, J. C.
McGhee, H. G.
Walker, J.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
MacLaren, A.
Watkins, F. C.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Maxton, J.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Messer, F.
White, H. Graham


Gallaeher, W.
Montague, F.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Gardner, B. W.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Paling, W.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Pearson, A.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Poole, C. C.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Grenfell, D. R.
Pritt, D. N.



Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Ridley, G.
Mr. Groves and Mr. Charleton.


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Ritson, J.



Resolutions agreed to.

STANDING ORDERS.

Resolutions reported from the Select Committee;

1. "That, in the case of the Ossett Corporation Bill, Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with: —That the parties be permitted to insert their additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."
2. "That, in the case of the Workington Corporation Bill, Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—

That the parties be permitted to insert their additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Colonel Gretton reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Lord Balniel, Mr. Baxter, Mr. Harold Nicholson, and Captain Cunningham-Reid; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Astor, Mr. Chapman, Mr. Palmer, and Mr. Henry Strauss.

Colonel Gretton further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A (added in respect of the Fire Brigades Bill): Mr. Elliot; and had appointed in substitution: Lieut.-Colonel Colville.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (RURAL WORKERS) AMENDMENT BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Extension of time for applying for assistance under s. 2 of 16 & 17 Geo. 5. C. 56.)

4.5 p.m.

Mr. Tomlinson: I beg to move, in page I, line 9, to leave out "forty-two," and to insert "forty."
The purpose of this Amendment is to shorten the period during which the subsidy is payable. It will be generally agreed that the purpose for which subsidies were granted under the original Act was to encourage the landowner or landlord to take advantage during a given period of the provisions made by Parliament whereby he could improve his property at little or no cost to himself. The argument was, of course, that in the interests of the people who would be called upon to live in these houses it was desirable that such improvements should be carried out.

Sir Francis Fremantle: Not at no cost. The landlord always has to pay.

Mr. Tomlinson: If I read the Act aright, where the amount does not exceed £100 the grant is payable by the State and the local authority.

Sir F. Fremantle: It is always two-thirds.

Mr. Tomlinson: Then I withdraw the suggestion that the landlord would receive the whole amount, and I am sorry for my mistake. Let me put it in another way. The inducement was that in order to obtain two-thirds of the amount he should take advantage of this provision within a given time. This is not anything new; other Ministers have taken advantage of the same principle; if it can be called a principle; they have offered the same inducements in other directions with a view to getting work done. I seem to remember a Minister of Education who suggested that if schools were reorganised and buildings erected within a given time a grant of 5o per cent. instead of 20 per cent. would be paid. The same thing

has occurred again in the present scheme of schools reorganisation, the purpose being that work which is necessary should be done within a given time.
Those of us who object to the principle of this Measure suggest that if that is the purpose in the mind of the Minister the limiting of the period during which the grant is to be made will result in the work being done much more speedily. It seems to me that if the Act is extended to 1942, instead of to 1940 as we suggest, we are simply allowing the individuals whose property needs reconditioning to go on for another three years before they carry out their obligations, knowing that the Act will not expire until 1942. In that way the Bill would be placing a premium upon the landlord who is not prepared to do his duty immediately. Further, if the Government are serious in the suggestion that it is in the interests of the people living in these houses that the houses should be put right, the acceptance of our Amendment would ensure that that desire was carried out earlier.

4.9 p.m.

Mr. Charles Brown: I support the Amendment. When the Minister moved the Second Reading of this Bill I thought he had very great difficulty in finding really effective arguments for a continuation of the Act for another four years. On examining the statement that he then made we find that in a period of about 12 years there have been about 46,000 cottages improved under this scheme. Everyone is aware that there must be several hundred thousand agricultural labourers who need rehousing under decent conditions. There are other measures at work, I know, but there seems to be no justification for the continuation of the Act for another four years unless there is a considerable speeding up of the process, and of that there is no indication at present. The Minister says that progress has been more rapid recently than formerly, mainly because of what he called publicity about the Measure. We hope that the right hon. Gentleman will get some further publicity to-day from the discussions in this House. But no one can say that the Act has been successful. Viewing the Act retrospectively, and remembering that it has been in operation nearly 12 years, no one can regard the Act as a success. It has not grappled effectively with what


is a real problem. Therefore, there is no very good reason for suggesting that it should be continued for another four years. We might give it a further trial, but I am certain that two years will be sufficient. If it is not demonstrated within the next two years that much more progress can be made by a Measure of this kind, I suggest that the whole matter calls for review and that the whole business should be tackled much more radically and thoroughly than has been the case up to now.

4.12 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Sir Kingsley Wood): I do not propose to debate whether the Act can be termed a successful one or not. Opinions obviously differ as to the meaning of the word "successful." All I say is that at any rate it was the view of right hon. and hon. Members of the Labour party when they were in office that there was not sufficient progress being made, particularly in Scotland, and they asked Parliament to renew the Act for five years. I have called attention to the observations of the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) on the Act. He made a very strong speech, critical as he was, but what he said certainly appealed to me. He stated that he would do nothing that would prevent one single agricultural worker from getting better housing conditions. That, in brief, is the answer to the question whether the Act is a success or not. As a matter of fact, there has been a considerable increase, particularly in England, in the application of the Act, and I hope it will be more generally adopted during this lengthened period of life.
There is a good reason why I have asked the Committee to continue the Act for the period that is mentioned in the Bill: it is to make the period coincide with that of the new agricultural subsidy under the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act of this year. We desire to do that so that we shall be able when the subsidy comes up for review, to look at the whole position of housing in rural areas and deal with all aspects of the question at the same time. If any further justification for this proposal were required, I think it is to be found in the unanimous recommendation of the sub-committee of the Housing Advisory Council in connection with the Ministry. In the first

place they regard the Acts as an essential supplementary part of the machinery of rural housing legislation. They also suggest that the period of the Acts should be extended, so as to correspond with the period of the new subsidy in connection with the housing of the agricultural population. For all these reasons I think the Committee ought to adopt the proposal in the Bill, which will enable a further, and I hope successful, effort to be made in this direction, before the end of the period indicated.

4.17 p.m.

Mr. Ridley: In his defence of this Clause, the Minister seemed to pitch his tone in a very minor key. He first called in aid the reason given by my right hon. Friend for supporting the Bill. The only reason which my right hon. Friend gave for doing so, was that he could not oppose anything which might do somebody some good in some way. I was glad that the right hon. Gentleman quoted the opinion of the advisory committee on rural housing to the effect that they regarded these Acts as an essential supplementary part of the machinery of rural housing legislation. I take it that the word "supplementary" is the operative word in that recommendation, and I beg therefore to suggest that the committee had in mind the idea that this legislation should be supplementary to something else. But to what? Surely it must be supplementary to a real effort to rehouse the people in the countryside—a real effort which has not yet been forthcoming from the right hon. Gentleman, and a real effort which will now, we take it, be deferred for at least four years. My hon. Friends on this side cannot join in that assumption. We suggest, therefore, that the extension should be limited to two years in order that the right hon. Gentleman may be encouraged to produce more substantial legislation, having for its object a generous replanning and rebuilding of rural housing such as neither this Bill nor any existing legislation would achieve.

4.20 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not seen fit to meet us on this Amendment. After all, he has succeeded in "wangling" the law, as regards a year's continuance of this legislation. This Act was passed in 1926 and was to last for five years. It was due to expire in 1931. It was carried on from


1931 to 1936. Then the right hon. Gentleman, amidst a mass of other legislation, carried its continuance until this year. Now he wants another four years. In putting down this Amendment we took into account the fact that the right hon. Gentleman had already enjoyed a two years' continuance beyond the intention of the Act of 1931, and I think he might have met us on this Amendment. But instead of that, having, as I say, wangled "two years, he now proceeds to suggest that the Act should last for a further four years. The right hon. Gentleman says he regards this legislation as a subsidiary contribution to the solution of the problem. I regard it as a very bad contribution. I am prepared, in a time of emergency, when new houses are not being built, to concede that a second-hand house made fit for the occasion might be better than a very old second-hand house. But I have never agreed—and my speeches on the subject are open to the Members of the Committee who are industrious enough to examine them—that reconditioning is a satisfactory process.
I am not against the preservation of ancient buildings. Indeed, I have done what I could to promote it, but it is clear that you cannot make satisfactory modern dwellings out of rural cottages which have been built for 10 to 150 years whatever you may do with them. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell), who is a practical builder, would agreed that it is practically impossible to put damp courses into these old cottages. You may improve the doors of these cottages so that they will shut or open, as the case may be, and you may increase the size of the windows, but you cannot prevent them from becoming damp, because of the absence of a structural feature which is common to every house built in these days.

Sir F. Fremantle: Modern methods enable damp courses to be put into these houses.

Mr. Greenwood: If the hon. Gentleman is prepared to make it a condition of the grant that it should be done, then I am prepared to reconsider my view, but the truth is that while it may be done, it is very costly and it is not often done. I challenge the hon. Gentleman to say in how many houses, in respect of which this grant has been made, damp courses have

been introduced. I hope either the right hon. Gentleman or the parliamentary Secretary will reply on this point, because I attach a great deal of importance to it. We have had reports from medical officers in the county areas about the prevalence of rheumatism among the rural population and that is not unconnected with dampness in rural cottages. In 1926, on the introduction of the original Act, I quoted reports by medical officers on the health of people living in these cottages; and my view is that most of the houses are so bad that they cannot be put right. There is no use in adding a new wing or another room on to a bad house, but that is being done under these Acts. A Member of Parliament told me last week that he had done it himself—and he is not a Member who sits on these benches. You cannot make a bad house into a good one by reconditioning it—I mean a cottage intended for a worker. If you are prepared to spend enormous sums on restoring an ancient mansion it can be done, but for 95 per cent. of these century-old rural cottages there is nothing but demolition.
The right hon. Gentleman in the Second Reading Debate said that the response under the Act was now increasing, as a result, he suggested, of publicity. The right hon. Gentleman's genius for publicity is well known and I think I described this Bill as a Measure for housing by publicity. But I do not think that takes us very far. Even if the right hon. Gentleman can induce more local authorities to take advantage of this Act and to push it—and to advertise the right hon. Gentleman himself in the process.—

Mr. Maxton: Very important—

Mr. Greenwood: Very important from his point of view. Even if all the advantages were brought to the notice of landlords, and even if they were to take full advantage of the Act, which will be the net effect in the next four years? The right hon. Gentleman's estimate—and this is purely problematical—is that 35,000 rural cottages will be put into a somewhat better condition than they are in now. At what cost? I suggest that this Government which has a sort of taste for economy in social affairs and which killed the Housing (Rural Authorities) Act in 1931—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] —Yes. Not 2,000 of those houses were


built, and there might have been 40,000 new cottages under that Act.

Sir F. Fremantle: They were not wanted.

Mr. Greenwood: The hon. Gentleman is apparently trying to become an expert in the art of intervention in Debate. I am afraid he will not succeed. I take his point. If these 40,000 new cottages were not needed, why does the right hon. Gentleman want to recondition 35,000 existing cottages?

Sir F. Fremantle: The right hon. Gentleman has taken up my intervention wrongly. I mean that those powers were not needed—as was shown in the previous Debate after the right hon. Gentleman had made his speech, but, unfortunately, he was out of the House.

Mr. Greenwood: In my judgment, and in the judgment of the majority of Members of this House, in 1931 those powers were needed, and they would have been exercised but for the first National Government, which slaughtered that Act. They built only about 1,800 houses, instead of 40,000. The right hon. Gentleman cannot deny that. Now he falls back upon advice. His advisory committee, he says, have recommended that the Act should continue for a further period. Part of the case which the right hon. Gentleman has made and which I conceded, was that this Act had been a boon to Scotland. What is the recommendation, then, of the Scottish Housing Advisory Council?

Sir K. Wood: Of the majority.

Mr. Greenwood: Yes, the majority, and, if I may say so, the right hon. Gentleman's majority. In their last report is the following:
 With regard to the period for which the Act should be extended we recommend that county councils should be empowered to receive applications for assistance for two years after the passing of legislation extending the Act.
There is the part of Great Britain where the Act has operated and where in 1931 they pleaded for its continuance. There is the part of the country which has gained most from the Act—and those are the words of people of wide knowledge and experience who have to advise the Secretary of State for Scotland. They add:

 We desire to make it clear that we are definitely opposed to any extension of the Act beyond this period.
Where then is the right hon. Gentleman's case? His charge against me on the Second Reading was that I was privy to the continuation of the Act in 1931, which I admitted in this House. He drew attention to what I had said about the situation in Scotland, but I had intended to draw attention to it myself. His strongest case was Scotland, and he asks now for five years when a majority of the Scottish Housing Advisory Council have asked for only two years and have said they hope this cursed piece of legislation will end at that time. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, it is so cursed in their view that they are definitely opposed to any extension of the Act beyond a further two years. If that be so, it seems to me to be reasonable that this Amendment should be accepted. If the right hon. Gentleman does not accept it, it is an admission of failure on his part to deal with the problem of rural housing, which the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) says does not exist. If it does not exist, this Bill is not needed, but if it is needed, then the submission made by every speaker on this side on the Second Reading is that the right way of tackling this problem is by new houses, built according to modern standards, and not by an attempt to lengthen the life of houses which in urban areas would have been condemned by medical officers of health two generations ago. I hope, therefore, the Committee will agree with us, and indeed will be prepared to go on arguing the point as to the wisdom of this Amendment.

4.32 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I regret that the Minister has not seen fit to accept the Amendment, because to have accepted it would have assisted him in his own rural housing campaign. I find that this Act has been of different values in different parts of the country. There may be some counties in England and Wales where a number of houses have been built, but there are other counties where the Act has been used by the local authorities very largely as an excuse for not getting on with their own jobs. Where those local authorities are very largely, if not entirely, composed of supporters, on election day, of the right hon. Gentleman,


who spend the time in between elections in cursing him and his Government for introducing a bastard form of Socialism, this Act is used as an excuse for their own schemes not being prepared. They say, "After all, rural housing has always been, is now, and ever ought to be a matter for private enterprise. We ought not to come into it at all, and we think the proper thing is for the landowners and the other people concerned to bring their cottages up to a proper state of repair by the use of this Act." If the right hon. Gen Leman limits the period of this Act to the two years that we suggest, he does deprive those people of two years of delay which they will use against him.
In some of these areas I have seen schemes submitted for turning stables into cottages, and in that part of the country areas which I know stables have frequently been better than rural workers' cottages. I well recall an estate that belonged to a duke, on which the stables for his horses actually had a set of hot water pipes so that they could be kept warm in winter, and that was on an estate where most of the rural workers' cottages were without damp courses. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that if he limits the operation of this Clause to two years instead of four, he does deprive these people who have no intention of getting on with the work of rehousing rural workers of one of their excuses for postponing the preparation of schemes. I sincerely hope the Amendment will be taken into the Division Lobby, so that we can make it quite clear that we think that the proper way of dealing with the housing of the rural workers is to build new cottages.
It is no use the Lord Privy Seal getting up in another place and saying that it is necessary that everything should be done to provide the working-class wife in the rural areas with as good conditions as she would enjoy in the towns, if for any substantial part of the houses that he wants built he is going to rely upon this Act. You cannot expect the wife of an agricultural labourer to be satisfied with the kind of cottage that is too often produced by this Measure when she knows that by going into a town she can get a house that has all the modern conveniences and that can be kept clean with a minimum of labour, as compared with

the maximum that she has to expend in many of these cottages. From every point of view, the restriction of this Measure to two years would be a good thing for the people whom the Measure is avowedly designed to benefit.

4.37 P.m.

Mr. Viant: The right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) mentioned the condition of many cottages in respect to the lack of damp courses, and the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) interjected the remark that in many of these cottages damp courses are now being put in.

Sir F. Fremantle: I did not say "are now being put in." I hope they are in many cottages where necessary, but I only said they can be put in, when the right hon. Gentleman said they could not.

Mr. Viant: I readily accept the correction, but as the hon. Member knows, I am speaking from personal experience, and I say that in a large number of these cottages it would be an impossibility to put in a new damp course, apart from the cost. You have to remove in a given space a number of layers of brick, and in so doing, when you have removed a couple of courses of bricks, you find that the underlying courses start to powder immediately they are exposed to the atmosphere. While remaining intact, the house will not sink, but you run a number of risks, and even although you put in a couple of layers of new bricks, you still have the remaining moisture there. You might coat your bricks with bitumen, but none the less you will not keep the damp down. In a number of instances—

The Chairman: The hon. Member is going into rather too much detail on this Amendment.

Mr. Viant: I am referring to the inadvisability of continuing this procedure for four years instead of two. The methods that are being adopted do not warrant the State expending the money in the manner in which it is being expended now. In a number of cases they are removing the soil and simply backing up the outside of the house with a coat of bitumen. Thousands of people are the victims of tuberculosis and rheumatism, owing to the fact that these cottages are so damp, and this Committee ought not


to be prepared to perpetuate a system of this kind but ought to be willing to embark as rapidly as possible on the building of new cottages.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: In Wales there has scarcely been any use of the powers of this Act, and as a matter of fact I support the Amendment because the Act is being used in Wales and elsewhere as an excuse for doing nothing with a very grave problem. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health has recently had two investigations, both of which have covered the housing problem in the whole of Wales and particularly in rural Wales. There was, first of all, an investigation which his officers conducted into the housing conditions in the county a part of which I have the honour to represent in this House, namely, Carmarthenshire. The results of that investigation have not yet been made public, but I do not think that I should be far wrong in saying that in that county there is revealed a shortage of well over 1,000 and nearing 2,000 rural cottages. The result is shown in this county, as in every other county, that people are leaving the agricultural industry, for one reason, because of the shortage of houses. I am sure that the report of the officers of the Ministry on housing conditions in Carmarthenshire will reveal that something infinitely more fundamental will have to be done there, something of a real public character. Most of these houses in my own county, as in most of the other rural counties, are very old—70, 80, and even 100 years old. They are houses that ought not to be improved, but that ought rather to be demolished. To begin with, in most cases they are badly situated. We would not choose those sites for new cottages, and to extend the life of these cottages in their present position is not to serve the interests of health or good housing at all, but is to perpetuate the evils of bad housing in the countryside.
Rheumatism, tuberculosis, and all the other diseases that are a plague in the countryside are providing a tremendous problem, and the position in Wales in this respect is parallel with that in the rest of the country. The mortality from tuberculosis in the rural counties of Wales is double the average for the country. It is absolutely a plague that is sweeping the countryside, and in consequence the

young people who grow up in the rural areas are looking for the first opportunity to get out of them. In these rural areas the county councils are responsible, but they say they are riot going to do anything about it, that there are provisions in the Act of Parliament by which the owners of the cottages can do something. The owners do not do anything, and the councils are using the powers of this Act as an excuse for not doing anything themselves. I am sure that something infinitely more effective than the provisions of this Act is required to deal with the problem. In 12 years we have lost in Wales alone 20,000 people who have gone out of the rural areas. The land is becoming depopulated, because the young people will not stay on the land and bring up their children to be swept by the white plague.
Then there is the other investigation, which has just been concluded and upon which the Minister will shortly receive a report, into the problem of tuberculosis. That investigation was forced to become an investigation into housing conditions, and the state of affairs revealed in the rural areas of Wales was absolutely a scandal and a byword. I do not know why it is that the man who works on the land, upon whom all other workers depend—miners, tinplate workers, colliery workers and factory workers—gets the worst house, the worst wage and the worst kind of life in every way. I support this Amendment because it will give a time limit to the landowners. I have never seen them do anything without a time limit. If they are given unlimited time they will fiddle it away, and do nothing. If the Minister is anxious, therefore, to get the most out of this Act, he will limit the time. We are proposing two years in order to give the opportunity for the most effective use to be made of it. We should tell the landowners that at the end of that time, if they have not reconditioned their cottages, the cottages will be pulled down and the local authorities will be told to tackle the problem. I support the Amendment also because I hope that at the end of two years we shall have another Government, and that we shall then get a Bill to deal fundamentally with this gravest of our social problems in rural England and Wales.

4.47 P.m.

Mr. Sorensen: rose—

The Chairman: I ought to utter a word of warning to the Committee. This Debate is developing into a Second Reading Debate, and I would remind hon. Members that the principle of extension was passed on Second Reading.

Mr. Sorensen: I appreciate the warning which you have given to me personally and to the Committee generally. It is given probably because it is strange for a representative of an outer London area to have the temerity to speak on this question at all. I do not know whether I have any houses occupied by rural workers in my district; if so, they must be few and far between. I represent, however, a constituency that is in a partially agricultural county, and as a member of the county council of Essex I am naturally interested in the housing of the people in that county who are of an agricultural and rural nature. I appreciate the desire of some hon. Members opposite to preserve some of our old cottages, if they can be preserved in their own historic condition, with a view to preserving the amenities of the countryside. Nothing is so offensive to the eye as new cottages totally out of keeping in the countryside in which they are erected. At the same time, there are other concerns besides the aesthetic. One often has a desire to buy

one of these country dwellings, but we should have a different idea of their aesthetic value if we lived in them for a fortnight.

We should limit the assistance which is being given to the landlords of Essex and other parts of the country. One of my county council colleagues who died a few months ago left a fortune of £200,000, and yet he had been foremost in securing every farthing's worth of assistance from the State and the county council for the preservation of his tumble-down cottages. We want to stop that sort of thing. Landlords have already had ample opportunity to take advantage of the facilities that are given under this Act, and there is no need to extend the facilities further. We should recognise that all has been done that can equitably be done. While we desire to preserve the characteristics of the countryside, we wish to preserve also the human beings who live there. In their interests we should limit the period of this Bill and intimate to the landlords that they have had ample opportunity of reconditioning their houses.

Question put, "That the word 'forty-two' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 196; Noes, 93.

Division No. 203.]
AYES.
[4.52 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Cox, H. B. Trevor
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Se'h Univ's)
Cranborne, Viscount
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Crooke, Sir J. S.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan


Atholl, Duchess of
Crossley, A. C.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Crowdar, J. F. E.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.


Balniel, Lord
Davidson, Viscountess
Holmes, J. S.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Davison, Sir W. H.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.


Beamish, Roar-Admiral T. P. H.
Da la Bère, R.
Hopkinson, A.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Horsbrugh, Florenoe


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Denville, Alfred
Howitt, Dr. A. B.


Bernays, R. H.
Dower, Major A. V. G.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)


Bottom, A. C.
Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)


Boulton, W. W.
Duggan, H. J.
Hulbert, N. J.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Edmondson, Major Sir J
Hume, Sir G. H.


Brass, Sir W.
Emrys- Evans, P. V.
Hunter, T.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Hurd, Sir P. A.


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Hutchinson, G. C.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.


Brawn, Rt. Hon. E. (Laith)
Furness, S. N.
Keeling, E. H.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Gluckstein, L. H.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)


Burton, Col. H. W.
Goldie, N. B.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Grant-Ferris, R.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)


Cary, R. A.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Leech, Sir J. W.


Channon, H.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Grimston, R. V.
Levy, T.


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Lindsay, K. M.


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Lipson, D. L.


Clarke, Frank (Dartford)
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grintead)
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Lloyd, G. W.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Hannah, I. C.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.


Co[...]ant, Captain R. J. E.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Mabane, W. (Huddarsfield)




MeCorquodale, M. S.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


MaKie, J. H.
Remer, J. R.
Tate, Mavis C.


Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Thomas, J. P. L.


Macnamara, Major J. R. J.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Touche, G. C.


Macquisten, F. A.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Makins, Brig.-Gin. E.
Ross, Major Sir R. O. (Londonderry)
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Markham, S. F.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Wakefield, W. W.


Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Russell, Sir Alexander
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Hon.


Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Salmon, Sir I.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Samuel, M. R. A.
Warrender, Sir V.


Mills, Major J. D (New Forest)
Sandeman, Sir N. S.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Wayland, Sir W. A


Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Sandys, E. D.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Scott, Lord William
Wells, S. R.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Shakespeare, G. H.
White, H. Graham


Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Neven-Spenoe, Major B. H. H.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitshin)


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Palmer, G. E. H.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wise, A. R.


Patrick, C. M.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Peters, Or. S. J.
Spans, W. P.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Plugge, Capt. L. F.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Procter, Major H. A.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)



Ramsbotham, H.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Cross and Mr. Munro.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffiths, J. (Llanally)
Poole, C. C.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Groves, T. E.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Ridley, G.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Ritson, J.


Banfield, J. W.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Barnes, A. J.
Hardie, Agnes
Sexton. T. M.


Barr, J.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Shinwell, E.


Batey, J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Silverman, S. S.


Benson, G.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Simpson, F. B.


Broad, F. A.
Hopkin, D.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Bromfield, W.
Jagger, J.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Brawn, C. (Mansfield)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lee- (K'ly)


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Chafer, D.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sorensen, R. W.


Cluse, W. S.
Kelly. W. T.
Stephen, C.


Cove, W. G.
Leach, W.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Leslie, J. R.
Summerskill, Edith


Daggar, G.
Logan, D. G.
Thorne, W.


Dalton, H.
Lunn, W.
Thurtle, E.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Tinker, J. J.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McEntee, V. La T.
Tomlinson, G.


Day, H.
McGhee, H. G.
Viant, S. P.


Ede, J. C.
MacLaren, A.
Walkdan, A. G.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Maxton, J.
Walker, J.


Gallacher, W.
Messer, F.
Watkins, F. C.


Gardner, B. W.
Montague, F.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Paling, W.



Grenfell, D. R.
Parkinson, J. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffiths, O. A. (Hemsworth)
Pearson, A.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Anderson.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

4.59 p.m.

Mr. T. Johnston: I was amazed at the levity with which some hon. Gentlemen on the other side treated the last discussion. The Amendment simply meant that the Act should not be allowed to operate for more than two years, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) submitted an official recommendation from Scotland in support of the Amendment.

The right hon. Gentleman did not even attempt to answer my right hon. Friend. The Amendment was simply brushed aside and we were smothered in the Division Lobby without any answer from the Government benches. I put it to the Minister or the hon. Member who is representing the Scottish Office that this is too important a Clause to be passed without discussion. I have the minutes of the Berwickshire County Council for 15th September, 1936. What do they say about the financial position in that


county as a result of the uncontrolled—because that is what it means—operation of these Measures?
 The rate for the work already done in this county under the Rural Workers Act is 7d. per pound, the total cost to date being £69,232, falling almost immediately on householders, as compared with a rate of about 1d. for all the new houses built in the county.
A penny is the rate leviable for all the new houses built under all the Acts up to 1936, and 7d. is the rate levied for the reconditioning of private property under this Measure. I should be out of order in discussing what kind of alterations have been made to houses in this and other counties, but on a later Amendment I hope to adduce some extraordinary examples of what has been done, and on still another Amendment to describe some of the extraordinary characters who have swallowed up the money, saying something about their banking accounts and the absence of a means test in this matter. The Government made no attempt to reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield when he quoted the recommendation of the majority of the Scottish Advisory Committee that on no account would they agree to an extension of the Act for more than two years, while the majority would not agree to extending it at all.
I do not know the figures for other counties, but I have given them for Berwickshire. In September, 1936, it meant a rate of 7d. in the£ in Berwickshire, and I would give a great deal to know what amount is levied in Ross and Cromarty, and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will at a later stage be prepared to tell us. I have cases where multi-millionaires have come along and got this money. There was a case in Berwickshire in which one proprietor got a grant of £1,000, and when he died a year or two afterwards he left estate valued at £300,000. Is that in accordance with public policy? Is that the sort of thing which the Government wish to promote and to continue, in face of the recommendations of their own committees and without giving any reply when the question is raised from the Opposition benches?

5.8 p.m.

Sir K. Wood: I am sorry if the right hon. Gentleman thinks that I have been

guilty of any discourtesy. I thought I had made a defence, to the best of my ability, of the action of the Government in extending these Acts for the period mentioned, and I recalled the recommendations of the English committee—not, it is true, the Scottish committee. It is also true that I did not reply to the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood). It is not often that I do not reply to him, and I always do my best, but I really thought that on this occasion he was having his usual little fling at this Measure, and that we might leave him to do so. He called it "a, cursed Act," and things like that, and I thought that he might as well be allowed to say it, and that I should not be doing any harm if I did not make any comment upon it. I am only anxious now that this Bill is going on to the Statute Book, and after the Second Reading had been agreed to without a Division, that we should all do what we can to make the very best of it, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not think that I am unduly unkind when I say that I do not think his speech was really helpful in getting the Measure accepted by the local authorities. I much prefer—and I shall cite it whenever I have occasion to advocate this Measure—a speech which was made by the late Mr. Adamson, who was regarded as a particularly sensible and safe man, so far as his politics permitted him to be.

Mr. Viant: On a point of Order. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether the late Mr. Adamson would hold the same opinion now?

The Chairman: The hon. Member must not interject remarks like that on a point of Order. It is no point of Order at all.

Sir K. Wood: The late right hon. Gentleman pointed out the advantages which were being given to agricultural cottages by the Measure he was then commending, and what had been done, although in those days a great deal less was being done than at the present time. He told the House that considerable advantage had been taken of the provisions of this legislation and added:
 It has been the means of providing improved and healthier housing accommodation for a large number of rural workers.
I doubt whether we could have better testimony to a Measure than that. He


went on to describe the work which could be done under the Bill which he was then bringing forward, and what he said applies equally to the Bill which I have the honour of bringing in.
 Much of the work that has been done under the Act has consisted of the introduction of water, baths and w.c.'s into houses; the provision of sculleries; the renewal of defective roofs and floors; the adoption of measures to do away with dampness; and the provision of larger windows to permit of better lighting and ventilation. Many examples of actual cases showing what has been done could be given if time permitted.
That is a statement by a late Secretary of State for Scotland. He added:
 Each year has seen a progressive increase in the number of applications made for grants and the number of houses reconditioned."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21St April, 1938; cols. 821–3, Vol. 251.]
These statements were made in support of a Bill to extend the provisions of the rural workers housing legislation for five years, and I regard them as a complete vindication of the action of the Government. It is perfectly true that the Scottish Advisory Committee recommended the extension for only two years, but the Government decided to follow the recommendations of the English advisory committee, and it is only fair to say that although the Scottish committee recommended two years, they did add this, and it is an impressive comment on the statement of the right hon. Member for Wakefield:
 We are impressed, however, by the very large number of houses in rural Scotland which are defective and which could be reconstructed or improved "—
They do not say that we must not do anything to recondition the houses, and that it must be all new building:
 and in order to give every encouragement to the improving of rural housing conditions we recommend an extension.

Mr. Greenwood: For two years.

Sir K. Wood: It is true they said for two years, and that the English committee recommended the longer period, and my answer to that is that the Government have taken the responsibility of following the advice of the English committee. My final observation is that I have never put forward this Measure as the only means of dealing with rural housing. I am not prepared to go over all the points in the speech of the right hon. Member for Wakefield, because I have heard them so many times, and I am sure he will go on repeating them—

I hope he will live many years to do so—but I would emphasise the point that, obviously, the main effort for better housing in the countryside must be made through the provision of new cottages. The Committee will remember that the Act gave very considerable help by way of subsidy to rural housing, enabling, we are advised, cottages to be built for agricultural labourers at a very low rent. This is a supplementary effort to that main effort. I ask the Committee to approve this Clause. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, if they want this Bill, will agree that this Clause must remain in.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. Johnston: Would the right hon. Gentleman mind giving the Committee the benefit of his observations upon the financial position which I have just exposed to him, regarding Berwickshire, and the rates of 7d. and 1d.?

Sir K. Wood: I do not quite see how that particular matter can be discussed on this Clause. All we are considering at the present moment is whether the Clause should be continued, although I regret the condition of affairs in that part of the country. So far as Ross and Cromarty are concerned, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that they will get additional grant under the Bill.

5.17 p.m.

Mr. Tomlinson: I was rather surprised that the Minister, answering a question put by my right hon. Friend, suggested that in some instances he had followed the advice of a committee and in other instances he had not done so. since coming here I have found that a Minister follows the lines laid down by a committee when it suits him. In particular, I remember the Rent Restrictions Bill which the right hon. Gentleman conducted through this House. It seems strange that the Scots, who have used this Act most and at such tremendous cost, should suggest that it be continued for not more than two years. The advice of the English committee—the English counties have not used the Act of Parliament, on the whole—was that it should be extended for four years. The Minister has taken the advice of the Committee that suited him. Will it surprise him that the great Lancashire county council has spent, during the whole period of the operation of the Act, just over £512 They have spent .004 of a 1d. rate,


which rate brings in £44,819, although there are 13 rural and 58 urban districts in what is one of the largest counties in England. There is no necessity for extension of the Act. The people in Scotland have had experience of the Act, and say that it ought to be stopped because it is not only a ramp, but an expensive ramp which does not produce the goods. In England, the local authorities may have learned something from sitting alongside their Scottish friends, but they would let the Act go on for another four years until they get a little more rake off. Then they will bring it to an end. There is no argument for continuing the Act.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Macquisten: So far as I can gather from the Opposition speeches there is something to be said for the Bill, although the Members opposite seem more anxious to get at the landlords than to get at the cottages. Are the local authorities getting the cottages?

Mr. Gallacher: No.

Mr. Macquisten: Yes, I think they are getting on with them. My objection to the building of new cottages is that most new buildings put up in these days, in modern building conditions, are very jerrybuilt. Shocking houses are being put up all over the country. Sometimes the builders themselves are not too sure whether the cottages will stand up before they get the wallpaper on. They want the wallpaper to hold the house together. The houses are frequently very bad. Old cottages are very much more solid although, of course, they are much more out of date and require repair which is very often expensive; but when it is done you get a much better result.
I am living in a cottage that has been standing for over 200 years, and will no doubt stand for another 200 years. [An HON. MEMBER: "YOU will not be the tenant then."] No, I do not expect I shall. You get a better job with proper reconditioning. By reconditioning you can make comfortable dwellings for the rural workers in Scotland. English houses are very gimcrack. One of the first things that struck me when I came south was that almost all the houses are made of brick. We used to despise bricks in Scotland. We used freestone, which is a better way of building cottages and

making them particularly solid. Our people in the Border land got into the habit of doing so generations ago when there was so much Border thieving and cattle stealing. You will find that those cottages, once they are fitted with modern conveniences, will be all that the people will want. Once those cottages are reconditioned in that way they will last for centuries.

5.22 p.m.

Mr. Johnston: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman be good enough to enlighten the Committee whether cottages are, as a matter of fact, getting conveniences, modern or otherwise, under the Act?

Mr. Macquisten: Surely, they are. If a man is spending money on his cottages he has to make them reasonable and give them modern conveniences. The tenants will not be satisfied with four bare walls. Landowners have the common sense to know that unless they do so they will lose their labour and make their agricultural operations much more difficult. Enlightenment is coming into every class that the first thing you have to do is to please your customer and the next to please your labour, and the capital will then be looked after. The man who does not treat his workers well and give them decent housing and working condition will go to the wall, every time, while the man who has a larger heart and a more liberal mind—

Mr. Gallacher: And a great imagination—

Mr. Macquisten: —will succeed.

Sir John Withers: The Minister gave us some interesting figures. I would like to know more about them. I would like to know the number of houses renovated under the renovation rate and the number built under the building rate.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. George Griffiths: I was amazed at the easy way in which the Minister took things, after the inquiry made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), and the damning facts that he disclosed. He began by sitting in a large county in North Wales, and I was keenly interested, because I was born in North Wales. He sat in Colwyn Bay and other places and he had evidence from Anglesey


and elsewhere. The inquiry was set up by the Minister himself. I wish the report had been here now. If it had been, and the Minister had stood at that Box with so much complacency I should have wondered what was the matter with him. It is no use being content while thousands of people are dying of tuberculosis on account of bad housing. The hon. and learned Gentlemant went for the local authorities, the sanitary authorities and the surveyors, but the best thing the Government could tell him was not to be quite so harsh about it. The Government are asking in this Clause that the dying from tuberculosis and the rheumatism should go on. We ask that there should be two years to make the application and that, if the opportunity has not been taken, the State should take the matter up and see that the people are properly housed.

5.27 p.m.

Sir Percy Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) asked whether there was any evidence of modern conveniences being supplied in these houses. I will cite a case from Stirling. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman did not listen to the recent broadcast from Edinburgh in which a discussion took place upon the advantages of new houses against reconstructed houses. After the claims on behalf of new houses had been put forward by a member of a local authority, the chairman of the debate said: "Now we are to hear a lady from Stirling, who lives in one of the reconstructed houses that has been made modern inside. She will give her opinion." The lady came forward and said: "I had a pretty poor house until it was reconstructed, and now it has all the conveniences that any working woman could desire." The councillor from Edinburgh who took part in the debate asked her: "Mrs. Ferguson, would you not like to have one of our new council houses?" But she replied that she would not. She went on to say: "The other day I went into a council house to call on a friend of mine and when I got to the bottom of the stairs I asked her whether I might come upstairs and have a cup of tea. My friend said she did not quite hear what I said, so I bellowed louder. Then she asked me whether I would mind going

into the room because she could hear me better through the ceiling."

5.29 p.m.

Mr. Johnston: I put a question to the Minister about something which he has not yet answered. I have here the Scottish Report, dealing with the rural parish of Tarbat, in the county of Ross, from which I have already quoted. On page 97 details are given of a very old house which was reconstructed under the Rural Workers Act. It is stated that out of 20 houses reconstructed, the number of houses in which, in spite of reconstruction, there is no inside water supply, is eight, the number in which there is dampness is one, the number with insufficient lighting six, those with no water closet six, and those with structural defects four. These are cases where public money has been spent in one small parish in Ross-shire.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Greenwood: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has chosen to regard this Debate somewhat flippantly. I do not so regard it. I do not appreciate his sense of humour, nor do I feel either annoyed or pleased about his jokes regarding myself. It may well be that, as has been said, there are houses which have been well constructed; I have never denied it; but what we say, and this is really the point, is that this is a major part of the housing problem, which, indeed, the right hon. Gentleman himself has admitted this afternoon. It may well be that in certain parts of the country the new houses are not as good as regards structure as the older ones. Perhaps it might have been better for the countryside if the houses there had not been built to last so long. There is a good deal to be said about length of life in regard to amenities in housing, and that again is part of our case.
We did not object to this Bill on Second Reading. I myself, in following the right hon. Gentleman, referred to the continuance of the Bill for two years, and quoted the recommendations of the Scottish Housing Advisory Council. I argued the case with regard to the period of two years, and I do not want to repeat the argument now, but the right hon. Gentleman has not admitted our case at all. If he added our two years to the two years he has already stolen, he would have got his four


years. We do not want to continue this kind of legislation indefinitely. It is beyond doubt, and, indeed, it has been admitted by official inquiries, that the Housing Acts in rural areas have never been satisfactorily administered. The law has not been carried out. Houses have been allowed to fall into disrepair, and it may well be that, in the interests of the rural workers, something has to be done immediately to deal with that problem. But the right hon. Gentleman is now dealing with an Act which has had a run since 1926, that is to say, 12 years. He is now proposing to add a further four years, making it 16 years—half a generation; and he still wants to continue it. But we have had evidence to-day, in the report quoted by my right hon. Friend, which proves that this Bill ought not to last even for another two years. I wish the right hon. Gentleman would publish some detailed return on this matter. I should like to see listed, in an appendix to a report, the names of the individuals who have profited financially by this Measure; and I should like to see an analysis of the burden which has fallen upon local rates.
We were told by my right hon. Friend, in the course of his argument against the continuation of the Act for more than two years, that one county just over the Border has a 7d. rate for improving houses which are privately owned, and has only spent a rd. rate in providing new houses. I say that that approaches a national scandal. It does not matter how much a rd. rate amounts to; the point is that seven times as much has been spent on improving landlords' houses as has been spent on providing new houses for people in similar circumstances. And I imagine that, in the county of Berwick, that rd. rate would include houses in urban areas; I do not know; but, anyhow, the proportion of 7 to 1 still remains. It seems to me that what we are asking is reasonable. The right hon. Gentleman prefers to accept the English report rather than the Scottish report. It was due to my lynx-eyed right hon. Friend, who discovered that the Scottish report suggested only a period of two years, that I was able to quote it on the Second Reading. This seems to me to let Scotland down very

badly. It is no use the right hon. Gentleman quoting my old friend Mr. Adamson. I have never run away from what I then said. I did not do so on the Second Reading, and I do not withdraw a word of it. I am not ashamed of it. But that was in 1931, and we are now in the year 1938. Seven years have elapsed, during which period I have not been responsible for housing administration. This policy is to continue for another four years.
The right hon. Gentleman made a serious statement, which may give rise to serious misunderstanding. He talked about having given an increased subsidy for rural housing. It is not true, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it. What he has done has been to reduce the subsidy under which effective building was being carried on, in order to improve the financial advantages to be obtained under the Bill which his Government introduced and which is not going to yield results. I accused the National Government of having butchered the Act of 1931. That seemed to cause some amusement to the right hon. Gentleman, but no amusement was caused to me by the fact that there are 38,000 houses missing which should have been occupied. Moreover, he has done a disservice to the rural areas by reducing the subsidy under the Act of 1930. The right hon. Gentleman is trying to have it both ways. By extending the Act for four years, he is giving a further four years' run to these private landlords who like to enrich their estates and improve their amenities at the public expense; and by other legislation he has confined and limited the capacity of local authorities to deal with this problem. We shall have to go into the Lobby against the Clause.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. Annesley Somerville: I am tempted to say a word after listening to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood). We have heard once more that public money is being spent for purposes of private profit. Would it not have been fairer if the right hon. Gentleman had mentioned that the owner is tied down by certain conditions —that he may not charge more than a certain rent, and that he is bound for the period of 20 years to keep the property at the disposal of rural workers? It is quite true that the Act of 1926 has


not been taken full advantage of, but it is also true that a good many thousands of rural workers have benefited through that Act by having greatly improved reconditioned cottages. I consider that the present Bill is an excellent Measure. Some counties have used the Act of 1926 very considerably—Devonshire, for in-

stance; and my own county of Berkshire has been using it of recent years. I congratulate the Minister on bringing forward an extremely useful Bill.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 202; Noes, 103.

Division No. 204.]
AYES.
[5.41 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Petherick, M.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leads, W.)
Grigg. Sir E. W. M.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Grimston, R. V.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.


Albery, Sir Irving
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Procter, Major H. A.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Assheton, R.
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Ramsbotham, H.


Atholl, Duchess of
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Hannah, I. C.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Balniel, Lord
Harris, Sir P. A.
Remer, J. R.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland. N.)


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ross Taylor, w. (Woodbridge)


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Bernays, R. H.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Russell, Sir Alexander


Boulton, W. W.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Holmes, J. S.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Broad bridge, Sir G. T.
Hopkinson, A.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Horsbrugh, Florence
Sandys, E. D.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Scott, Lord William


Burton, Col. H. W.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Shakespeare, G. H


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Shaw, Major P S. (Wavertree)


Cary, R. A.
Hulbert, N. J.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hunter, T.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Channon, H.
Hutchinson, G. C.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Spens. W. P.


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Keeling, E. H.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Storey, S.


Christie, J. A.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Clarke, Frank (Dartford)
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Leech, Sir J. W.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Sinter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Levy, T.
Tasker, Sir R. E.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Lindsay, K. M.
Tate, Mavis C.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Lipson, D. L.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Lloyd, G. W.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Cranborne, Viscount
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Touche, G. C.


Crooke, Sir J. S.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
McKic, J. H.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Cross, R. H.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Crossley, A. C.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Wakefield, W. W.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Macnamara, Major J. R. J.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Davidson, Viscountess
Macquisten, F. A.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


De la Bère, R.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Manningham-Butler, Sir M
Wayland, Sir W. A


Denville, Alfred
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Markham, S. F.
Wells, S. R.


Duggan, H. J.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
White, H. Graham


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Elmley, Viscount
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mills, Main- J. D. (New Forest)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Wise, A. R.


Foot, D. M.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Withers, Sir J. J.


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Munro, P.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Furness, S. N.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Gluekstein, L. H.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh



Goldia, N. B.
Owen, Major G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grant-Ferris, R.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Captain Hope and Major Sir


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Patrick, C. M.
James Edmondson.


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Peters, Dr. S. J.





NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Grenfell, D. R.
Pearson, A.


Adams, D. N. (Pep'ar, S.)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Poole, C. C.


Adamson, W. M.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Alexander, Bi. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Ridley, G.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Ritson, J.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Banfield, J. W.
Hardie, Agnes
Sexton. T. M.


Barnes, A. J.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Shinwell, E.


Barr, J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Silverman, S. S.


Batey, J.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Simpson, F. B.


Bonn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Hopkin, D.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Benton, G.
Jagger, J,
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Broad, F. A.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly>


Bromfield, W.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sorenson, R. W.


Cape, T.
Kelly, W. T.
Stephen, C.


Chater, D.
Kirkwood, D.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng;


Cluse, W. S.
Loath, W.
Summerskill, Edith


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Leonard, W.
Thorne, W.


Cove, W. G.
Leslie, J. R.
Thurtle, E.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Logan, D. G.
Tinker, J. J.


Dagger, G.
Lunn, W.
Tomlinson, G.


Dalton, H.
Macdonald. G. (Ince)
Viant, S. P.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
McEntee, V. La T.
Walkdan, A. G.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
MeGhee, H. G.
Walker, J.


Day, H.
MacLaren, A.
Watkins, F. C.


Ede, J. C.
Maclean, N.
Watson, W. McL.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Maxtor, J.
Welsh, J. C.


Edwards, Sir C. (Badwellty)
Messer, F.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Gallacher, W.
Montague, F.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Gardner, B. W
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gibson, R. ([...])
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Grain, W. H. (Deptford)
Paling, W.



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Parkinson, J. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Charleton and Mr. Groves,

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3.—(Repayments of grant to be proportionate to unexpired part of period for observance of conditions.)

The Chairman: A manuscript Amendment has been handed in on Clause 3. I must reserve my right as to how I shall deal with it, until it has been explained.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, in page 2, line 32, to leave out "shall," and to insert "may at the discretion of the local authority."
The Amendment will soon be understood when I explain that the right hon. Gentleman on Second Reading pointed out that where any house has been reconditioned the recipient of the grant, who accepted the whole of the conditions laid down before a grant was obtained, had to preserve the house in a decent state of habitation for a minimum of 20 years. At the end of that time, presumably, he could break one or all of the conditions attaching to the grant. The right hon. Gentleman said that the English Rural Housing Sub-Committee had made a recommendation that the whole of the grant need not be repaid, assuming that the conditions had been carried out for

some years. He rather thought that this House ought to be satisfied with a portion of repayment, if the conditions had been carried out for a long time. He took an extreme case when he said:
 For example, an owner who wished to free himself from the special conditions 19 years after the receipt of a grant would be compelled to repay the whole original sum, with compound interest, from the date of payment, notwithstanding that the special conditions had only a few more months to run. Obviously this Amendment should be made, in justice and fairness."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th May, 1938; col. 1258, Vol. 335.]
I think that, in justice and fairness, that alteration ought not to be made, because, having accepted a Treasury grant and a grant from the local authority, the owner of the property ought not to be permitted to escape from his responsibilities, unless he repays in full the grant he receives for the reconditioning of his house. I have here a letter from the West Riding County Council about this Bill. They say:
 Instances have come to the notice of the West Riding Public Health and Housing Committee that attempts have been made by owners of reconditioned houses to let them to tenants who are not agricultural workers or people of similar economic condition, and the committee are of opinion that all houses in respect of which a grant is made call for careful oversight.
I am sure hon. Members will appreciate that, in the course of 12 years or so, a


large number of rural houses have been reconditioned, and that when the owner of the property finds a week-ender willing to pay two or three times the rent that an agricultural labourer can afford to pay he is willing to break his contract and repay all the sums received from the Treasury and the local authority. That results in the dehousing of the rural population, and I think that such owners ought either to be made to repay the whole of the advance or, as the Amendment suggests, it should be left to the discretion of the local authority, which could ascertain whether there were special reasons to justify them in demanding not full payment, but only the proportion outstanding, according to the number of years to run.
I am sure that most hon. Members who reside in rural areas can recall cases where rural dehousing has taken place; where reconditioned houses have been diverted to other tenants, who can afford to pay two or three times as much rent as the rural occupant should pay; and where the owners have broken the contracts and re-let houses. In these circumstances I do not think it is asking too much to insist on the maximum conditions being carried out over the 20-years period. If an owner of property, failing, on his own initiative and out of his own resources, to keep his house or property in decent condition, applies to the county council and secures a grant from them and another from the Treasury, and accepts certain conditions, he ought to be made to fulfil his part of the contract, and there ought to be no relinquishing of the conditions.
I hope that the Committee will accept the advice which has been tendered by the biggest county council in this country. If the West Riding County Council has seen cases where reconditioning has taken place and the house has then been relet to somebody other than an agricultural worker, at a higher rent, what must be the condition in the Southern counties, all of which can be termed holiday places. In spite of all the nice things I could say about the West Riding, I could not call it a holiday centre. Other hon. Members may have other views on that. If this weakness has been discovered in the West Riding, it probably exists to an infinitely greater degree in the Southern counties.

5.59 P.m.

Mr. G. Griffiths: There is one point on which I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). It is true that the West Riding is industrialised, but it has some of the most beautiful spots you will find in the world. I can quite understand the hon. Member for Don Valley; he is so busy outside the county very often; but I am always in it, and I find all these beautiful spots. One that I have in mind, for instance, is Cawthorne. In my division, while there are the pits and muck heaps and burning fires, there are nice spots all round. My county council is very perturbed about this. I sat on the Public Health and Housing Committee for years, and these cases used to come up. We found that people were making an attempt to evade the Act. We had an application for three houses to be reconditioned, but they were not wanted for agricultural workers; they were wanted for other workers, receiving higher wages. I hope that the Minister will accept this Amendment. If people who receive the grant break the conditions they should return every penny piece with interest. I do not think that we are asking for too much. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary, now that the Minister is away, at least to pay attention to what the West Riding County Council say about this matter, and I hope that he will get up straight away and say that he will accept the Amendment.

6.1 p.m.

Mr. Tomlinson: I support the Amendment, although it scarcely goes far enough to meet my point of view. I cannot see either the wisdom or the good sense of making an alteration in the previous Act. The right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill suggested that in equity, where only a portion of the period had to run, only the remaining portion should be paid for. Money is obtained from the State and from the local authority under certain definite conditions. It may be that the property owner at the time is not in a position to repair his property without assistance, and as a result of receiving assistance from the State and the local authority he is able to recoup himself financially, and, after a time, find himself in a position to turn what was an uneconomic unit into an economic unit and wish to break the conditions under which


be obtained the amount under the Amendment proposed by the Government in this Bill. He will be in a position to take advantage of the fact that he has recouped himself, to break the conditions and pay back a portion of what he received.
The only justification for this Measure suggested in the Committee this afternoon—as was the case on Second Reading—and for the making of grants, is the provision of houses for a certain class of people. Every justification put forward from the benches opposite have been on that basis, but it is suggested in the Clause that if the individual wants to turn out of a house a member of that class for whom it has been reconditioned and put in another individual, he can do so simply by repaying a portion of the money he has received, calculated on the time which is unexpired. If he has kept the conditions for 10 years, he pays only a 10-years' fine, as it were, in order to be relieved from those conditions. I contend that he is not entitled to do it either legally or morally. The individual—and the Government would be assisting him—would be getting the money under false pretences, and, by taking advantage of this provision, would be breaking not only his word but the word of the Government to the individual who occupied the house.
It would be well nigh impossible to determine what period of time had to run. At what period of time do the conditions, which have to be maintained in respect of the house, fall below the standard under which he has received the money? It may be that the inspector visits the house and finds that it is not being kept up to standard, that the conditions are not being complied with, and that it is not in all respects fit for human habitation. How long has it been unfit before discovery by the sanitary inspector? I know of houses which have been scheduled as unfit for human habitation for the last 10 years but which have only just been discovered. Why is that? Because somebody has suddenly wakened up. Is a man to be let off payment of the money because he has not kept the conditions? He will be, if the position is left as it is at present. Certainly the Amendment will leave it to the discretion of the local authority to decide

whether or not he should pay the whole or a prtion of the money.
The arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) are good and legitimate. The Amendment will enable the local authority to inquire as to the period for which the conditions are being framed and enable it to safeguard the interests of the individual in the house. The only reason that the Government have put forward in favour of the Bill is the safeguarding of that individual, and without the Amendment he cannot be safeguarded. Therefore, I hope that the Amendment will be accepted.

6.7 p.m.

Captain Heilgers: I cannot go as far as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson) and speak of breaches of faith and so forth, but for once in a way I find myself in sympathy with the Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). It is rather a pity to make this entirely mandatory. I have in my hand an account of a meeting of my own county council, at which there was an application from the owner of a house who stated that he was unable to obtain a tenant in accordance with the provisions of the Act. He therefore wished to sell the property and asked for permission to repay a grant of £50 made to him in 1934. The Act had operated, as far as that house is concerned, for only four years, and it ought to have operated for 20 years. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will perhaps be able to say that he will reconsider the matter between now and the Report stage. This Measure is not one concerned so much with the owner, but is primarily one for the housing of the rural worker.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. Ede: It was somewhat of a surprise to me that this Amendment should have been moved and supported by hon. Friends connected with the industrial counties of the West Riding of Yorkshire and of Lancashire. I cannot accept the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) that there are no holiday spots in the West Riding of Yorkshire. I once spent a very delightful holiday at Sedbergh, which I found to my surprise was under the West Riding of Yorkshire County Council, and there can be few more typically English


rural places to be found. I support the Amendment, having had administrative experience in a very different county from either the West Riding of Yorkshire or Lancashire. One of the difficulties of dealing with rural housing in Surrey is the way in which a block of three or four agricultural labourers' cottages have been converted into one week-end residence, and let with a very substantial reduction in the amount of accommodation for the rural population. If the Clause goes through as it is worded there will be a great temptation to people, when they get offers from residents of London who want some rather smart cottage, as they call it, in the country, to part with three or four of these cottages which may have been reconditioned under the original Act.
The local authority should be able to exercise a reasonable discretion in this matter of repayment. I can see a man making a very handsome profit out of reconditioning his cottages with the assistance afforded to him by the Act, and allowing the rural workers to live in them for only a year or two and then parting with them to some musical comedy actress or somebody else who wants to bury herself in the country for the weekend. The demand of these types of person for these old rural buildings is very astonishing, and the prices they are prepared to pay are still more astonishing. Unless the local authorities are protected in this way, I can see them really becoming little more than people who are assisting rural landowners to put their cottages into a condition which will enable them to dispose of them for almost fabulous sums. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to accept the Amendment.

6.11 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: I wish to support the Amendment, and I consider that my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) has put forward an unanswerable case. It is clear that the intention of the Government, so far as the Bill is concerned, is to make liberal concessions almost in every Clause to the owners of such property. There is a vast number of cottages which require renovation and bringing up to modern standards, and 12 months is quite enough for the purpose and not four years. I would say in passing that I know of certain cottages in country districts both in

Northumberland and Durham, which if they had been in the towns would have been condemned long ago as unfit for human habitation.

The Deputy-Chairman (Captain Bourne): I think that the hon. Member is speaking to the wrong Amendment.

Mr. Adams: I said "in passing." I was referring to the concessions which are being made to the landowners and owners of these cottages in the different Clauses submitted to us. In this Clause we are placing a premium upon the speculative owner and inducing him to get rid of his liabilities under the Act. There is a new class who have come into the market for country cottages. I refer to those who feel that they ought to have air-raid defence cottages away from the centres of population. There are continuous and repeated inquiries for cottages in the county of Northumberland for this purpose. Owners of cottages who have them renovated under the provisions of the Act for the purpose of housing rural workers have a financial liability, and now a premium is being offered to them to enable them to get rid of their liability. The person who desires a convenient cottage in the country or one for the purpose of air-raid defence has an opportunity provided for him under this Measure. It is immoral to allow any such latitude. It is a variation of the entire spirit of the Act and contrary to all that the Minister has stated, and the Committee undoubtedly ought to assent to the Amendment.

6.14 p.m.

Sir Percy Harris: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health will make this very small concession, not because it is his last will and testament, but because, I understand, he is to be transferred to a much higher post, or a much airier post, and it would be appropriate, before he shakes the dust of his present office from his coat, to make this very reasonable concession on this Bill. It is common knowledge that there is a kind of landlord—I know that he is not general—who is making a business of appealing to the sentimental side of the general public, who like to live in thatched cottages, and he sells cottages to towns people at a very big profit. It is obvious that if these landlords can borrow money from the local authority


and modernise these houses and bring them up to date, their opportunity to sell the cottages and to transfer them from their original purpose is increased. They may get a grant of £50, or whatever it may be, from the local authority, and if they do that and later they offer to pay back the subsidy, it is a direct incentive for them to do the very thing that we wish to avoid in the rural districts, namely, pushing out the agricultural labourers in order to make way for town dwellers, middle-class people, who have their flats or houses in towns. I hope that in order to prevent that most undesirable practice the right hon. Gentleman will make some concession.

6.16 p.m.

Sir K. Wood: This question can be viewed from two aspects. It is true that there may be a number of cases such as the hon. Baronet has indicated, but even in those cases I do not think it can be said that the local authority is in any way penalised, because the owner pays back the grant which he has received. There is a counter-balancing argument which is provided as a result of the inquiry which was made by the Rural Housing Sub-Committee who, after hearing a large number of witnesses, definitely came to a conclusion which is reflected in their recommendation that:
 On a breach of the special conditions on which a grant has been made the owner should be required to repay a proportion only of the original grant, calculated by reference to the proportion of the 20-year period during which the conditions have been observed.
They made that recommendation, and I would remind hon. Members that it was not a suggestion, as has been hinted, which came from the Government with a view to doing something for the landlords as against tenants. It was a recommendation which came from a Committee anxious to do all they could for rural housing and anxious, if possible, to suggest Amendments by which the existing Acts could be improved. They definitely came to the conclusion that if, say, at the end of the nineteenth year when the grant condition had been breached the owner was compelled to repay the whole amount, it would be unreasonable and would be a deterrent to the working of the Act.

Mr. T. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the nineteenth year case

in his Second Reading speech, and he repeats it now in Committee. since the Act has been in operation for only 12 years and no such case can ever have happened, why does the right hon. Gentleman quote such a case, and how came the Committee to make this recommendation and to visualise a 19-year case when no such thing has happened?

Sir K. Wood: I do not regard that point as being very serious, and I am prepared, if the hon. Member desires, to amend my statement and say at the end of 10 years or 12 years. The point is that the Committee definitely stated that that would be a deterrent to the operation of the Act and they recommended to the Government that the alteration should be made. I think that was a wise recommendation. It was not done for the purpose of benefiting the landlords. It was the proposal of a Committee of which the Bishop of Winchester was the chairman. Lord Crawford was another member. Another member was Mrs. Dollar, whom hon. Members opposite must know quite well. Other members were the hon. Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George), Mr. A. L. Hobhouse, the chairman of one of the leading county councils, who has had a life-long connection with work of this kind; Mr. Simpson; Sir Raymond Unwin, who is not a man likely to make a recommendation which was unfair; and the Rev. Schomberg. That was the body which made the recommendation, and the Government adopted it. Although there may be some cases such as hon. Members have pointed out, I submit that on the whole what is proposed is the wise thing to do and that by adopting the recommendation we shall make the Act more generally useful.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. Greenwood: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not seen his way to meet this Amendment, which has been put down in all good faith as representing the view of a very large county authority, and it may be that it represents the views of other local authorities. The right hon. Gentleman has been misleading us to-day, and now he is running away from us. Before he leaves us I hope that he will do something to meet this case. These grants are made for 20 years and there is nothing in the original


Act as far as I know—I have not consulted any legal experts and perhaps I am wrong—which says that the conditions under which a grant is given permits that to be done of which complaint is now made. I should say that the intention of this House was that once a cottage had been reconditioned for an agricultural worker or persons of a similar class it should remain in use for that purpose. There is nothing in the law which implies anything else, but the Government proposal enables persons to contract out of their moral obligations before the expiration of the 20 years.
I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Captain Heilgers), who spoke in support of the Amendment. It is unfortunate that houses reconditioned for a particular purpose and for a particular class of people should at the end of a certain period be allowed to fall into the hands of other people. The people who are going to get this new advantage were never contemplated in the Act; they will get a financial advantage which was never contemplated. They have been allowed to use this capital for all this period, and then on repayment they can get out of what Parliament intended was to be a permanent legal obligation. Where there has been a breach of the conditions under which the grant was made the person guilty of the breach ought to be required to repay the whole of the grant, with compound interest, unless the local authority are satisfied that there may be special circumstances which would justify them in taking that point of view. All we are asking is that the local authority with knowledge of the circumstances in its own area should exercise its discretion in the matter.
The right hon. Gentleman has not made any effective reply to the case put forward by the hon. Member for the Don Valley. Have not these views been indicated to him by members of other local authorities besides the West Riding local authority? If the West Riding authority takes the view that this is a serious case, there must be some substance in it. I am sorry that I have had my private row with one of my hon. Friends on the point as to whether the West Riding of Yorkshire is a holiday resort. I regard it as one of the most beautiful parts of Britain. A large county council like the West Riding Council may not be in exactly the

same position as an authority in Somerset, Surrey or Sussex, but if an industrialised county like the West Riding has had cases of this kind, how many more cases will there be in the area of the purely rural county council? My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley assures us that the West Riding County Council say that cases of this kind have happened, and that there has been breach of the spirit of the Act, and it is perfectly clear that there may be a very large number of other cases. I hope that before the right hon. Gentleman flies off he will be good enough to accept the Amendment, otherwise we must carry it to a Division.

6.29 p.m.

Mr. Price: The right hon. Gentleman has not satisfied us on these benches that speculation in houses designed for agricultural labourers and others of similar occupation in the countryside will not go on. He has pointed out that the State and the local authority will not lose, but what we are most concerned about in regard to this Amendment is the fate of the agricultural labourer, and the right hon. Gentleman has not proved that the agricultural labourers may not be deprived of their houses in consequence of the tendency to convert country cottages into week-end residences. It is not only rich people or middle-class people from London who are going out into country surroundings near London, for the same thing is going on all over the Provinces. Persons engaged in business in the smaller provincial towns are going out into the country. Although it may be a very healthy movement it undoubtedly interferes with the housing accommodation of the indigenous rural population. It is going on, and steps must be taken to prevent it.
I know of several cases in recent years in which agricultural labourers have had to leave their cottages and go elsewhere, paying a much higher rent, 5s. and 6s. per week, with no increased pay, and consequently they were in a much worse economic position than before. The Amendment is reasonable. As one who has actually been engaged in availing himself of this provision to recondition country cottages in the last few years, I am naturally interested in the question. I do not want at the end of 20 years to have the right to let the cottage at a much higher rent. It is only reasonable that if


State money is used for this purpose it should be confined solely to assisting the indigenous agricultural population to get better houses. It is possible that it will not solve the main problem of housing the rural population, but it may make some small contribution towards it, and the Amendment will assist in the direction of preventing the obvious abuses which are going on. I think the Government should accept the Amendment.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. Ridley: I can only regard the speech of the Minister as one of the most extraordinary performances I have heard for a long time. He addressed himself to the Amendment as thought it was drawn in quite different terms. His speech was addressed to an Amendment drawn in such overriding terms as to impose on local authorities the obligation in all circumstances to recover, whereas, in fact, it is drawn in permissive language and requires that the local authority shall examine each case and reach its determination according to the terms of each case. It seems to me that the Amendment is sheer equity, if anything with a little generosity towards the landlords, certainly in those cases where a landlord has been guilty of not continuing to observe the decencies. Three simple points are involved. The first is that the declared purpose of the Bill is to add to the quantity of decent housing accommodation available for the agricultural labourer. We should resist anything which will allow cottage property made available by State money for occupation

by the agricultural workers, to be used for some other purpose altogether.

Reference has been made to the weekend habit. I do not suggest that the week-end habit can be described as evil or pernicious, but it comes dangerously near to it. It is a piece of middle-class snobbery. It certainly is evil in the sense that in many normal beautiful English country villages, what were once charming cottages are being refurnished in a garish fashion, and painted in the most glaring colours. If we want to preserve the amenities of the countryside I think it is necessary to keep these week-enders away. If a landlord has acquired a State grant to develop his property and to add to its attractiveness and capital value, desires for his own pecuniary gain to take advantage of the opportunity presented to him, I hope the local authority will at least be able to consider such a case and determine what the landlord's obligations are. The Amendment errs not only on the side of generosity but is heavily tinctured with it. A landlord who gets a substantial grant from the State on an undertaking that he will do something and then fails to do it, is not required to repay the whole of the grant but only some portion of it. I hope the Minister will accept the Amendment as merely equity and that he will give local authorities the right to do what they think fit, having full knowledge of all the local circumstances.

Question put, "That the word shall ' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, '99; Noes, 115.

Division No. 205.]
AYES
[6.38 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Cross, R. H.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Crossley, A. C.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Crowder, J. F. E.


Albery, Sir Irving
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Davies, C. (Montgomery)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Bull, B. B.
De la Bere, R.


Assheton, R.
Campbell, Sir E. T.
Denman, Hon. R.D.


Atholl, Duchess of
Cary, R. A.
Denville, Alfred


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Dugdale, Captain T. L.


Balniel, Lord
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Edmondson, Major Sir J.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C.M.
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Elmley, Viscount


Barrie, Sir C, C.
Channon, H.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Erskine-Hill, A. G.


Beamish, Roar-Admiral T. P. H.
Chorlton, A. E. L.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Christie, J. A.
Fremantle, Sir F.E.


Beechman, N. A.
Clarke, Frank (Dartford)
Furness, S. N.


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Fyfe, D. P. M.


Bernays, R. H.
Clarry, Sir Reginald
Gluckstein, L. H.


Bossom, A. C. 
Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Goldie, N. B,


Boulton, W.W.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Grant-Ferris, R.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.


Bracken, B.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Gridlay, Sir A. B.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Cox, H. B. Trevor
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Crooks, Sir J. S.
Gritton, W. G, Howard




Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Macquisten, F. A.
Sandys, E. D.


Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Maitland, A.
Scott, Lord William


Hannah, I. C.
Makings, Brig.-Gen. E.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Manningham-Bullar, Sir M.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Markham, S. F.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Mayhow, Lt.-Col. J.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Holmes, J. S.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Storey, S.


Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Hopkinson, A.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Horsbrugh, Florence
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hudson, Capt. A, U. M. (Hack., N.)
Munro, P.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Nall, Sir J.
Tasker, Sir R. 1.


Hulbert, N. J.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Hume, Sir G. H.
Nicholson. G. (Farnham)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., s.)


Hunter, T.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Hurd, Sir P. A.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Hutchinson, G. C.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Patrick, C. M.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Joel, D. J. B.
Peters, Dr. S. J.
Wakefield, W. W,


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Petherick, M.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Kerr, Colonel C. l. (Montrose)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Plugge, Capt. L. F.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Procter, Major H. A.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Lambert. Rt. Hon. G.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Wells, S. R.


Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Ramsbotham, H.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Leech, Sir J. W.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Rayner, Major R. H.
Wilton, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Levy, T.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Lindsay, K. M.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Wise, A. R.


Lipson, D. L.
Remer, J. R.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Lloyd, G. W.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Wood, Hon. C. l. C.


Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Rots Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Rowlands, G.



MaCorquodale, M. S
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES —


MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Russell, Sir Alexander
Mr. Grimston and Major


Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Herbert.


McKie, J. H.
Samuel, M. R. A.





NOES


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Owen, Major G.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Paling, W.


Adamson, W. M.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Parkinson, J. A.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Groves, T. E.
Pearson, A.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Poole, C. C.


Ban field, J. W.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Price, M. P.


Barnes, A. J.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Pritt, D. N.


Barr, J.
Hardie, Agnes
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Batty, J.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Ridley, G.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Riley, B.


Benson, G.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Ritson, J.


Broad, F. A.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Bromfield, W.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsay)


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Hopkin, D.
Sexton, T. M.


Cape, T.
Jagger, J.
Shinwell, E.


Chater, D.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Silverman, S. S.


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Simpson, F. B.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cocks, F. S.
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cove, W. G.
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees-(K'ly>


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Leach, W.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Daggar, G.
Leonard, W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Dalton, H.
Leslie, J. R.
Stephen, C.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Logan, D. G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Day, H.
Lunn, W.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Ede, J. C.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Summerskill, Edith


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
McEntee, V. La T.
Thorne, W.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
McGhee, H. G.
Thurtle, E.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
MacLaren, A.
Tinker, J. J.


Foot, D. M.
Maclean, N.
Tomlinson, G.


Gardner, B. W.
Maxton, J.
Viant, S. P.


Garro Jones, G. M.
Messer, F.
Walkden, A. G.


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Montague, F.
Walker, J.


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watkins, F. C.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Naylor, T. E.
Watson, W. McL.


Grenfell, D. R.
Oliver, G. H.
Welsh, J. C.







White, H. Graham
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Woods, G. S. (Finshury)


Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)



Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)
Wilton, C. H. (Attercliffe)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Chorlton and Mr. Anderson.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 4 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 6.—(Amendment of condition as to maximum rent where further assistance given by way of grant.)

6.47 p.m.

Mr. Johnston: I beg to move, in page 4, line 1, after "subsequently," to insert "but not before the commencement of this Act."
Under the 1926 Act, a landlord was entitled to charge, for a period of 20 years, an increase of 3 per cent. on the rent in respect of his share of the expenditure on improving or reconditioning a cottage. If an amount of £l00, for instance, was expended on improving or reconditioning a cottage, and one-third of the amount was provided by the State, one-third by the local authority and the remaining one-third by the proprietor, the proprietor was entitled to charge 3 per cent. per annum on £33 6s. 8d., and that 3 per cent. was an addition to the normal agricultural rent. Clause 6 of the Bill now before us provides for the increased percentage of the rent to he raised from 3 per cent. to 4 per cent. As I read the Clause, it does not make clear that the landlord will not be able to charge the 4 per cent. retrospectively upon any increased expenditure he may have incurred on a cottage prior to the passing of this Measure.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn): Under the 1935 Act, he is now charging 4 per cent. on improvements made before the passing of this Measure.

Mr. Johnston: I am not quite clear about that.

Mr. Wedderburn: I am not quite sure whether the Amendment has the same purpose as the next Amendment on the Order Paper, and I cannot quite understand what its effect would be. Under the Housing Act, 1935, the permitted increase was altered from 3 per cent. to
4 per cent.

Mr. Johnston: Was it made retrospective?

Mr. Wedderburn: Not in respect of expenditure incurred before 1935, but for the last three years, 4 per cent. has been the permitted increase. The Amendment is rather meaningless since it reads:
 but not before the commencement of this Act,
but already, before the passing of this Measure, an additional I per cent. was permitted.

Mr. Johnston: If I were the proprietor of a cottage and had incurred expenditure in 1928, I should have been permitted td charge an increased rent to the extent of 3 per cent. upon the amount expended in 1928. If I had incurred further expenditure in 1935, after the Act was amended, do I understand that I should have been entitled to charge 4 per cent. not only upon the new work done after 1935, but upon the money expended in 1928 as well?

Mr. Wedderburn: As I recollect the 1935 Act, I think it was only on subsequent expenditure, but I will confirm that in a minute or two.

Mr. Johnston: Evidently there is some doubt on the Treasury Bench; but whatever was done in 1935, we are now dealing with the question of what it is proper to do in 1938. As the Clause is drafted, I submit that it is clear that the proprietor of a cottage, who has already made two, three or four separate pieces of expenditure upon his property, under the Rural Workers Housing Act, some of it at 3 per cent. and some perhaps at 4 per cent., is to be entitled, if the Clause is not amended, to charge an increase of 4 per cent. on past expenditure. He would be allowed an increased rate of f per cent. back to 1926 or 1927. I hope that is not the intention of the Government. If I understand the Under-Secretary correctly, that is what happened after the 1935 Act, and when new work was done on property, the proprietor not only got 4 per cent. with regard to the new work, but got an increase of 1 per cent. on the previous work.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays)indicated dissent

Mr. Johnston: The Parliamentary Secretary disputes what the Under-Secretary of Scotland said. I ask them to make up their minds which is correct.

Mr. Wedderburn: My recollection is that the 1935 Act was not retrospective, but I must confirm that.

Mr. Johnston: It is not?

Mr. Wedderburn: I must confirm that. I gather that this Amendment is to protect the position between 1935 and now.

Mr. Johnston: If we are correctly informed, and if the increased rate of interest with regard to any improvements made to property after the 1935 Act was passed was not made retrospective, may we be similarly assured that, under this Bill, there is to be no retrospective increases? As I read the Clause, it will be retrospective, and on past expenditure the landlords will get 4 per cent. instead of 3 per cent. If we are correctly advised, and if the two hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench have made up their minds on the subject, I suggest that it is time the Clause was carefully explained to the Committee. If this is to be done, let it be done openly and above board, so that Parliament may know what is happening. If it is not to be done, let the Clause be so amended as to make it clear beyond all doubt that no landlord who has made expenditure in connection with improvements to property shall be entitled to charge 4 per cent. on previous expenditure as well as 4 per cent. on present expenditure.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. Wedderburn: The position with regard to permitted increases of rent was that, before 1935, the permitted increase was 3 per cent. on the amount paid by the owner, whereas under the Housing Act, 1935, the permitted increase was raised from 3 per cent. to 4 per cent. in respect of works completed after 1st January, 1935. This Clause does not alter the position retrospectively; it refers only to new cases, and does not mean that an additional I per cent. can now be obtained in respect of money spent, let us say, in 1928, but only on additional sums before the passing of this Act and since 1935; that is to say, since the date at which the permitted increase was raised from 3 to 4 per cent. I could not quite make out what was the purpose of this

Amendment when the manuscript was handed in. I think that perhaps the whole position with regard to increases of rent can be more fully discussed on the next Amendment, if the right hon. Gentleman intends to move it, but this Clause certainly does not alter the position retrospectively.

Mr. Johnston: As drafted at present, the Clause reads:
 in respect of a dwelling, and subsequently further assistance has been so given in respect of that dwelling.
Are we to understand that, without there being any qualification limiting the operation of these words, 4 per cent. is to be charged only upon 1935 payments and 1938 payments, and that there is not to be increase from 3 to 4 per cent. in connection with payments in 1926, 1927 or 1928?

Mr. Wedderburn: Yes. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks there is any doubt about that point, I will certainly undertake to examine it; but as I read the Clause I cannot see that there is any doubt.

Mr. T. Williams: As the 1935 Act amended the 1926 Act, is there any necessity for this Clause, since it appears to deal only with subsequent improvements?

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Wedderburn: I think the Clause should be taken with Clause 9, which gives power to grant increased assistance for the abatement of overcrowding. That is a new provision. The effect will be that if under Clause 9 further assistance is given in order to relieve overcrowding, in addition to the improvements that have been already carried out, then the permitted increase in rent will be 4 per cent. —that is, 4 per cent. on the portion of the cost that is paid by the owner.

Mr. Johnston: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

7.1 p.m.

Mr. Barr: I think there is sufficient reason for opposing this Clause until we can have it further elucidated. We are entitled to make some further inquiry as to why an increase to 4 per cent. should be permitted now, when 3 per cent. was sufficient before. This deals with a case


where buildings have been extended and reconditioned, and it is found that that is not sufficient, and further improvement is necessary and, so far as that is paid for by the owner he is permitted to increase the rent by 4 per cent. That does not altogether appeal to me. This is a building that has already been patched up and is found insufficient, and you are going to patch it up again. That may be justified on the ground of relieving overcrowding, but it seems to me a doubtful policy. The fact that what you have done is quite insufficient and you are asking leave to do it again—and for anything we know it might be done still another time —suggests that the real solution is new housing. It is evident that after all your policy of reconditioning is proving insufficient.

7.4 p.m.

Mr. Wedderburn: This Clause applies only to those houses for which a pecuniary rent can be charged. The greater part of the houses which are reconditioned under the Act are houses attached to a farm, which are rent free, so they are not affected by the provisions for permitting an increase of rent. The only effect of this Clause is to permit an increase of rent to be charged in respect of additional works. If it were not passed the result would be that if the owner of the house had carried out the whole of the work at one time he would be permitted to charge 4 per cent. on his expenditure, whereas if he did the work in two instalments (for example, if he adequately reconditioned the house and in a year or two it became overcrowded and he added another room) then he would not be permitted to charge 4 per cent. on the second expenditure. I do not think there is any good reason for making a distinction of that kind.

7.6 p.m.

Mr. Ridley: The Under-Secretary has just made a statement which astonishes me. I understood him to say that the great majority of houses covered by the Bill would be houses in respect of which no pecuniary rent was paid. Am I correct?

Mr. Wedderburn: I did not say they would be. They are. It always has been so. The great majority of houses attached to a farm are houses for which no rent is paid.

Mr. Ridley: That astonishes me. It may be so in Scotland, with which the Under-Secretary is evidently more familiar than he is with the conditions in England and Wales.

Mr. Wedderburn: I am informed that in England they very often do pay rent, but in Scotland they do not.

Mr. Ridley: I have spent a great part of my life in English villages living in the sort of cottages which may or may not be affected by this Bill. I think I shall have the Minister of Agriculture with me when I say that only a very small minority of English agricultural cottages are cottages for which no pecuniary rent is paid, and, so far as England is concerned, Clause 6 covers the great majority of English agricultural labourers.

7.8 p.m.

Mr. Maitland: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is only in respect of the amount expended that additional rent can be charged. Whilst I agree that circumstances may be different in Scotland, the landlord is expressly prohibited under this Bill from charging any excess in the rent which is now payable and which was payable before the works were executed.

Mr. Ridley: The Under-Secretary defended the Clause on an assumption which. was entirely unsound.

Mr. Wedderburn: It was intended to be an explanation rather than a defence, but as a matter of fact the vast majority of houses which have been reconditioned under this Act are in Scotland; comparatively few are in England. The position about English service cottages is that the conditions governing their rents override the power to increase the rent of an improved cottage under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act. Exactly in the same way Clause 6, dealing with a permitted increase, will not affect service cottages in England.

7.11 p.m.

Mr. Sexton: On looking at the principal Act referred to in Clause 6 I see words which say that
 no fine, premium or other like sum shall be taken in addition to the rent.
In this Bill these words are omitted. Does that mean that a fine, premium or other like sum can now be charged in addition to the rent? It is very remarkable that


those words were necessary in the principal Act, and are not now

Mr. Wedderburn: I do not think those words are repealed.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 204; Noes, 110.

Division No. 206.]
AYES.
[7.13 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Plugge, Capt. L. F.


Adams, S. V. T. Leeds, W.)
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Procter, Major H. A.


Albery, Sir Irving
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Atholl, Duchess of
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Ramsbotham, H.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Hannah, l. C.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Balniel, Lord
Harris, Sir P. A.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Baxter, A. Beverley
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Remer, J. R.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Porum'h)
Heilgers, Captain F. F- A.
Robinson, J, R. (Blackpool)


Beechman, N. A.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Bernays, R. H.
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Rowlands, G.


Bossom, A. C.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Boulton, W. W.
Holmes, J. S.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Brass, Sir W.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Briscoe, Capt. R- G.
Hopkinson, A.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sandys, E. D.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Hunter, T.
Scott, Lord William


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Hutchinson, G C,
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Bull, B. B.
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Burghley, Lord
Joel, 0. J. B.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Cary, R. A.
Kerr, Colonel C. l. (Montrose)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Cualet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Knox, Major-Genera! Sir A. W. F.
Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Channon, H.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Leech, Sir J. W.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Christie, J. A.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Clarke, Frank (Dartford)
Levy, T.
Storey, S.


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Lindsay, K. M.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Lipton, D. L.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J,
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Lloyd, G. w.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
MaCorquodale, M. S.
Tasker, Sir R. l.


Cooper. Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Titchfield, Marquess of


Cox, H. B. Trevor
McKie, J. H.
Train, Sir J.


Crooke, Sir J. S.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Cross, R. H.
Macquisten, F. A.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Crossley, A. C.
Maitland, A.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Wakefield, W. W.


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Da la Bère, R.
Margessan, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Markham, S. F.
Warrender, Sir V.


Denvlite, Alfred
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Duncan, J. A. L.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Wayland, Sir W. A


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Wells, S. R.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. fl.
White, H. Graham


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Evans, D. 0. (Cardigan)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Fleming, E. L.
Munro, P.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Foot, D. M.
Nail, Sir J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Wist, A. R.


Furness, S. N.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Withers, Sir J. J.


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Gluckstein, L. H.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Goldie, N. B.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Gower, Sir R. V.
Owen, Major G.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Grant-Ferris, R.
Peters, Dr. S. J.



Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Petherick, M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Captain Dugdale and Mr. Grimston.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Barnes, A. J.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Barr, J.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Banfield, J. W.
Bonn, Rt. Hon. W. W.




Benson, G.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Ridley, G.


Broad, F. A.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Riley, B.


Bromfield, W.
Hopkin, D.
Ritson, J.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Jagger, J.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Sexton, T. M.


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Shinwell. E.


Chater, D.
Kelly, W. T.
Silverman, S. S.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Kirby, B. V.
Simpson, F. B.


Cocks, F. S.
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cove, W. G.
Leach, W.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Leonard, W.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly>


Daggar, G.
Leslie, J. R.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Dalton, H.
Logan, D. G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lunn, W.
Stephen, C.


Day, H.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Dunn, E. (Rother Valloy)
McEntee, V. La T.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Edo, J. C.
McGhee, H. G.
Summerskill, Edith


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
MacLaren, A.
Thorne, W.


Edwards, Sir C. (Badwellty)
Maclean, N.
Tinker, J. J.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Maxton, J.
Tomlinson, G.


Frankel, D.
Messer, F.
Viant, S. P.


Gardner, B. W.
Milner, Major J.
Walkden, A. G.


Garro Jones, G. M
Montague, F.
Walker, J.


Gibson, R. (Greenook)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watkins, F. C.


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Naylor, T. E.
Watson, W. McL.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Oliver, G. H.
Welsh, J. C.


Grenfell, D. R.
Paling, W.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Parker, J.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Parkinson, J. A.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Groves, T. E.
Pearson, A.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Pethick-Lawrenoe, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Poole, C. C.



Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Price, M. P.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hardie, Agnes
Pritt, D. N.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Adamson.


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)



Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clauses 7 and 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 9.—(Power to give increased assistance for abatement of overcrowding.)

7.20 p.m.

Mr. Ridley: I beg to move, in page 5, line 6, at the end, to insert:
 Provided that no further assistance shall be given under this section unless the local authority are satisfied that upon the completion of the works the dwelling will cease to be overcrowded as aforesaid.
The purpose of the Amendment is to give precision if not indeed meaning to the Clause. It will be seen from the Clause that a grant can be made where overcrowding exists within the provisions of the Housing Act of 1936, but the Clause does not, in our view, make sufficiently plain the extent to which, by the aid of the grant, the existing overcrowding is to be abated. I go further and say that the language of the Clause as it stands is so general as to have no precise meaning. It says:
 for the purpose of the abatement of the overcrowding 
without relating that language to any standard of overcrowding. The word "abate," by itself, means only to diminish, to reduce, to mitigate or to make less. Therefore the Clause as it stands would be satisfied if the existing

overcrowding were diminished even to a very inconsiderable and unsatisfactory extent. The Clause also provides that the grant shall be made where the standard is worse than that specified in the Act of 1936, but it does not require that the house in respect of which the grant is made shall be brought up to the standard defined in that Act.

7.22 p.m.

Sir K. Wood: Sir K. Wood rose

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. G. Griffiths: In which capacity is the right hon. Gentleman addressing the Committee?

Hon. Members: It is all in the air.

Sir K. Wood: I gather from the movement in the Committee that hon. Members have anticipated my purpose of advising the Committee to accept this Amendment. There may be some ambiguity about the Clause as it is drafted, but I think our intentions are the same as those of hon. Members opposite, and this Amendment seems to make abundantly clear what we all desire. For those reasons I suggest that the Committee should accept the Amendment and I wish to thank the hon. Member for Clay Cross (Mr. Ridley) for having brought it forward.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Treading on air.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE Io.—(Special provisions as to Scotland.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

7.24 p.m.

Mr. Macquisten: I notice that in this Clause provision is being made for an increase in the grant to local authorities in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, and I suggest that the proposed increase is not nearly enough to meet the situation in that area. These are extraordinarily poor districts. In many of them even a 6d. rate yields practically nothing. We have been very badly treated in the Highlands in the past—so much so, that our population has almost disappeared—and if the Government want to do anything to help to retain the population which is there now, and to bring back others who have gone, they ought to act more generously in this matter. I would remind hon. Members that only the other day the House of Commons had an opportunity, as the result of the enterprise of a private company, of adding i20,000 a year to the rateable value of the county of Inverness, but for reasons which were altogether erroneous they refused that chance.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. and learned Member cannot raise that point now.

Mr. Macquisten: I am mentioning that case only by way of an analogy to show why these areas ought to get a bigger grant than that proposed in the Clause. I do not know that I should be in order in making any proposal which would have the effect of increasing the charge, but I would ask the Minister to consider whether, instead of making a grant of three-quarters of these payments he should not make a grant of the whole in order to ease the position of these very hard-hit districts, in the matter of providing housing facilities. There is no more lovely place in which to reside than the Highlands and Islands, and if decent housing accommodation were available there I am sure it would help to bring back great numbers of the population

who have left. Even those who have gone to Canada and have made money there are eager to return again to the misty islands. I think it would be a great misfortune if this Measure were not interpreted in the most generous way, as far as it affects the Highlands and Islands.

Sir K. Wood: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will take due note of the remarks of my hon. and learned Friend.

Clause II ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment as to schemes by local authorities.)

Subsection (2) of Section one of the principal Act shall have effect as if at the end thereof the following paragraph were added;

(d) specifying the proof to be required by the local authority of the financial inability of the owner of a dwelling-house to carry out the proposed works without assistance under this Act.—[Mr. T. Williams.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.28 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
It is right and proper that the right hon. Gentleman—now about to take flight—who has been such a stickler for means tests for many years, and who has carried on the tradition of Queen Elizabeth, not only in connection with public assistance but also in connection with Income Tax, unemployment insurance and in several other directions, should apply the principle of the means test to the case of reconditioned cottages. We have many first-class examples on record of what we ought not to do with public funds. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) referred in the Second Reading Debate to the case of the late Sir John Ellerman, and I remember my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Paling) calling attention to an application which had been made on behalf of a brewer in Norfolk for financial assistance under the terms of the original Act. There are other cases in various counties, if one cared to bring them here, in which we could show that not only the Treasury and the local


authorities, but the Act, and the spirit of it, and even the Minister's intentions have been abused from 1926 to the present time.
We all agree that the hard-pressed owner-occupier, employing one or two persons, who has one or two cottages that he cannot recondition out of his own resources, should receive help to help himself, and incidentally to help his employés, for any farmer who knows the real value of a skilled agricultural labourer would do anything within his power to retain such a man on his farm. If, however, he finds it impossible to recondition an out-of-date slum dwelling and makes application to the local authority, it is proper for that authority to respond to the application if all the conditions are fulfilled. In any case I think that even the Minister of Health will appreciate that this Act was not designed to help the super-wealthy people—millionaires, in fact, who own large areas of land on which various kinds of cottages exist—to put their cottage property into a decent state of habitation at the expense of the ratepayers and the Treasury. We think, therefore, that where the applicant is not an owner-occupier with very scanty resources, but where he happens to be a large landowner owning a large number of farms, with a fairly considerable rent roll, or where the rent roll is not too large, but he divides his attention between the countryside and the city, making perhaps more money out of the city than out of the countryside, it is grossly unfair for such an individual to apply to a local authority, to ask the ratepayers, rich and poor alike, to help him to put his cottage property into a decent state of habitation.
Therefore, with the cases that we have in mind all over the country, we think it fair that when an application is made for this grant, at least the local authority ought to have the power to invite the applicant to prove his inability to recondition his own property. I am certain that the legitimate applicant would not hesitate to give justifiable reasons to the local authority for a grant. But I know that cases have come before almost every Member of this House who has displayed any interest in rural life during the past eight or ten years, and we know what the usual process is. We know that in rural areas, because of rural councils having

failed in their duty to rehouse agricultural labourers, there are large numbers of cottages at any one time that are not fit for human habitation. In fact, a large number in many areas have been condemned by the medical officers of health, but in those areas, although new houses have not been erected, applications have been made in many cases for grants for reconditioning from persons who were quite capable of reconditioning their own property without resort to either the ratepayers or the Treasury. That is the kind of case that we want to get at.
There was a case the other day of an application for a grant to enable cottages to be reconditioned, which was refused by the Gloucestershire County Council. The right hon. Gentleman might tell me that that is the answer to my case, that in fact the county councils have the powers, and in certain cases use them, to refuse applications, but they only refuse them, I imagine, where it is a question of repairs as distinct from reconditioning. It was suggested that such applications were in effect demands from wealthy landlords for public authorities to do their repairs. A landlord on the council himself added that if they were going to relieve landlords of their responsibility to do their own repairs, the position was a serious one. It was also said that if they were going to help landlords, they should impose a means test on them. A county authority may examine applications meticulously, and if they feel that it is for purposes of repairs as distinct from reconditioning, they have the power to refuse, but if the application is exclusively for reconditioning, that is the only condition that must be fulfilled. Therefore, if an application comes on behalf of a millionaire, he can successfully apply for these rates and Treasury grants.
It is clear, from the right hon. Gentleman's attitude, that he thinks that that is quite proper and fair, and that he is satisfied that an extremely wealthy person who has property and tenants, who receives rents for his cottages, many of which perhaps have been condemned as unfit for habitation, and who refuses to do repairs or to recondition or make his houses tenantable—the right hon. Gentleman thinks it proper for such a super-wealthy person to go to the local authority and ask for and obtain these grants. Has he forgotten that rates are paid by the


poor as well as by the rich, and that to the extent that the ratepayers as a whole are subsidising very rich applicants for these grants, it is a gross injustice upon the poor wretched ratepayers? Particularly is that so in certain industrial areas which have been depressed for a long time past, where the industrial portion of the districts forms part of a semi-rural area and where such grants could be obtained by those who do not reside there themselves, who have no social relationships with the area, but who just take advantage of this legislation to enrich themselves at the expense of the miserable poor who remain in the villages.
I know that the Minister might say that it is the tenant who gets the benefit. He might have told me that before the passage of Clause 3 of this Bill, but there is no longer any guarantee that the tenant will get the benefit, because if the owner of a property that has been reconditioned at the expense of the public finds that he can rent it at double or treble the rent that an agricultural labourer can pay, he can break his bargain with the local authority, repay the grant originally advanced, empty that property for rural housing purposes, and let it to any other person prepared to pay the price; and to that extent this Measure is having quite the opposite effect that the right hon. Gentleman would desire. In any case I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman can justify a person of the eminence and wealth of the late Sir John Ellerman, a person reputed to have left £40,000,000, coming to poverty-stricken ratepayers and asking them to put his property into a decent condition. I do not think he could justify people who can own an estate, and maintain it for shooting or sporting purposes, being applicants for grants of this description, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will at least consider, before he flies off to another Department, the legitimacy of this suggestion of ours. We do not want to withhold a grant in an appropriate case, but where a person owns a property for which is receiving rents and has neglected his duty in the past, instead of compensating him for his backwardness, his meanness, his indifference towards his property and his tenants, we ought to fine him as heavily as we can. In any case I am convinced that such people ought to show cause why they are unable to recondition their own property.

7.41 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The suggested new Clause is one that at first sight seems to be acceptable to me and, I imagine, to a great many other people as well. It is an unqualified scandal that men of great wealth should come to the public authorities and gain assistance out of the pockets of the ratepayers. That seems to be quite unjustifiable, but it is one thing to condemn action of that kind; it is another thing to try and overcome it by a Clause such as this, and with great respect to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), who moved it with his usual eloquence, I do not feel that the suggestion that he makes is a practicable one. Let us face what would be the normal situation. The test is inability on the part of the property owner to meet the cost himself. The county councils would first of all ask, "What do you mean by inability?" You would have to interpret it and lay down some sort of standard, the standard either of a man's income or of a man's property. If you placed the income at £500 or £1,000 a year, you would almost certainly exclude a man who owned the very property that you wanted to improve.
You might take, on the other hand, his capital resources. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the case of a man with a shooting estate, and I agree that that sort of man looks as if he should be able to do the work himself, but the hon. Member knows as well as I do many cases of proprietors of land and shootings who have no available resources to improve the cottages on their property, and the proof of that is that they have not up to date improved those cottages. I speak from knowledge. You have in Scotland many cases of farm workers' dwellings in a shocking state of repair, which ought to be improved, but which are not, simply because the landowner has not the ready funds with which to do it. Everybody admits that; there is no dispute about it. Many hon. Members opposite condemn the whole landlord system, because landlords have no capital with which to do their job properly. That is one of the cases for land nationalisation, and I admit that it is a strong one. Therefore, I feel that you must make an interpretation and lay down a standard, but however you define that standard, I think it will be such that you may exclude the very type of


property that you would seek to have improved.
It may be said that that is destructive criticism, and I may be asked what I have to offer in the way of constructive suggestions. I feel that the only way to avoid these unfair, unjustified applications for public assistance is the power of the Press and of public opinion. In my county all applications for assistance under this Act come publicly before the appropriate committees, and they are reported in the Press. Let us hope that the Press and we as public men will not fail in our duty to draw the attention of the people to cases of that kind.

Mr. Johnston: The Ellerman case was widely reported and it created a great scandal, but that did not prevent the Ellerman people pressing their claim.

Mr. Stewart: I am aware of that, but there are many people in the Ellerman position who thought shame of that action. I can only hope that by the continued publicity of unfair applications we shall avoid the sort of case to which the hon. Member properly drew attention. While I sympathise with the desire of the hon. Member in moving this new Clause, I feel it is impossible for the Committee to accept it.

7.47 P.m.

Mr. C. Brown: The hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) began his speech by acknowledging that the matters to which this proposed new Clause calls attention were a scandal. Then he adduced a series of reasons why the Clause should not be put into the Bill. One of them was that before a means test could be applied to people applying for money under this Act a standard would have to be set. He foresaw considerable difficulties in doing that, so he went on to suggest that we should leave the matter to public opinion. In view of what has happened during the last 12 years, we on these benches do not think that public opinion is sufficient to deal with this matter, which the hon. Member himself has called a scandal, and we therefore move this new Clause. I do not know whether the Minister will accept it. He has just accepted an Amendment, and in view of what has happened outside and the new mood in which he finds himself, he might perhaps accept this new Clause. If he did, it would get hon. Members

opposite out of a considerable difficulty. If he did not, I cannot imagine how they can logically refrain from going into the Lobby in support of it. Nearly everyone I can see on the benches opposite has at some time or other during the last five years supported a means test, and a large number of Members who are not present have done it with enthusiasm. They believe that people should not have money from public funds without some sort of test being applied. Therefore, I cannot see how they can logically oppose this new Clause.
There seems to be no good reason why we should not put this Clause in the Bill and rigidly apply a means test to people who ask for money for reconditioning their cottages. We have set up a system which results in the most meticulous inquiry into the minutest details of the incomes of some of the poorest families. We have established a vast piece of machinery throughout the land to conduct these inquiries systematically before the poorest of our population can receive a penny from public funds. In view of that fact, and in the light of the cases that have been brought before the Committee, in which money for the reconditioning of cottages in country districts has been granted to people who could well afford to do without it; and in view of the fact that hon. Members opposite are committed to a principle of a means test which they have defended at the General Election, I suggest that they should apply it to people in the same strata of society to which they belong as rigorously as they have applied it to the poorest sections of the community.

7.51 p.m.

Mr. Bernays: As the only Parliamentary representative of the Ministry of Health left in the House at the moment, perhaps I may be permitted to say a word on this new Clause. I have listened with the greatest interest and attention to what hon. Gentlemen opposite have said, but I suggest that they are labouring under a misconception. They have described this grant to the landlord as a great public scandal. It would be a public scandal if, in fact, the landlord were to benefit personally by this grant. But a grant made under these Acts is completely different from the money granted after the means test mentioned by the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. C. Brown). It is


not in any sense a dole to the landlord. The conditions attached to the receipt of the grant make it beyond a shadow of doubt that for a period of 20 years the benefits of the grant do not go to the owner but go to the tenant. The principal conditions are that the cottage must be let to an agricultural labourer or someone in a similar occupation for a period of 20 years; that the rent must not exceed the normal agricultural rent; and that it should only be increased by an amount equal to the interest rates on the money that the landlord has expended out of his own pocket. Even this increase of rent can only be made where it does not conflict with the regulations governing the rent which may be charged for tied cottages. The benefit to the owner is, therefore, limited to only 4 per cent. of his own money, and in some cases not even that, together with the satisfaction to be derived from the knowledge that he owns a good house instead of a bad one.

Mr. Sorensen: Does it not mean, in fact, that this grant relieves the landlord of an obligation that morally should be his?

Mr. Bernays: I am coming to that. It is an important point. The benefit to the tenant lies in obtaining an improved house at a disproportionately small increase of rent which is only chargeable in certain cases. Now I come to the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. The works of improvement carried out under the Act go in general far beyond anything which the local authority could require the owner to carry out by way of repairs under the Housing Acts. It is of importance that the Committee should grasp that it is not possible to get a grant for repairs under this Bill. The requirement that in order to qualify for a grant the works must cost not less than £50 was included in order to make it impossible for a landlord to receive a grant under the Bill merely for repairs. If, therefore, a wealthy owner were unwilling to carry out improvements without a grant, there is no machinery by which he can be compelled to do so. If you said to a wealthy owner, "You shall not have a grant under this Bill because you are wealthy," it would mean in some cases that necessary reconstruction would not be carried out and agricultural housing would accordingly suffer. I will quote the opinion of the English Rural Housing

Sub-Committee on this question. They examined witnesses of all kinds and inquired into the point whether there should be discrimination against the wealthy landlords. They came to this conclusion, which appears on page 13 of the report of the Rural Housing Sub-Committee:
 Some of our witnesses have suggested that certain local authorities discriminate in their administration of the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts against owners with means. Discrimination of this kind is in our view contrary to the intention of the Acts and likely to result in depriving tenants of agricultural cottages of the benefits the Acts were intended to afford them. A local authority have of course complete discretion to decide whether they shall grant any particular application but;t general discrimination against a whole class of persons is in our view strongly to be deprecated.
That opinion, coming from such a powerful source, is one that ought to have weight. I would also remind the Committee that there was nothing in the report of the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee to show that they took a different view from that of the English Housing Sub-Committee on this question. The Bill is concerned, not with the landlord, but with the tenant. It is a rural housing improvement Bill and the Government are convinced that, were there a means test of the kind suggested, the improvement in rural housing conditions would in many cases not take place. Therefore, the Government ask the Committee to reject the new Clause, not in the interests of the landlord, but in the interests of the tenant and of better housing conditions for rural workers.

7.59 P.m

Mr. Johnston: The speech of the Parliamentary Secretary is about the most amazing statement relating to this type of Amendment that I have ever heard. I have no doubt of the hon. Gentleman's sincerity, and I have no doubt that there is a germ of truth in every statement he made. I have no doubt, too, that there are some poor men and women in every county who have benefited as the result of the past operation of these Acts. I have never disputed that, and I would be loath to do anything to prevent any human being getting a water supply or lavatory accommodation under the Acts if they would not otherwise get them. But it is another pair of shoes when we


are told bluntly at that Box that the landlord does not gain by these improvements. There is no question that he gains by an improvement in the capital value of the properties on his estate. If two-thirds of the capital value of the improvements made to cottages are put up by the public—one-third by the local authority and one-third by the National Treasury—then of every £100 spent in reconditioning the property £66 comes from the public purse, and if the reconditioning is done at all, about which I have doubt in some cases, those properties can later be disposed of at increased values. Therefore, it is playing fast and loose with the Committee to say that a landlord gets no benefit out of the reconditioning Clauses of the Bill.
I go further and say that if this Bill were not in operation houses in many rural districts would be pulled down under the sanitation laws and the owners of them would be compelled either to put up new cottages for their own employés or, alternatively, to contribute through the rates to their share of the cost of houses provided by the public authority. I have already given one illustration of what is going on and nobody has disputed my figures. I have said that in the county of Berwick—not a Highland county, not Ross and Cromarty or any of the beautiful isles of the west—7d. in £ the has been added to the local rates by this Act, and only 1d. in the £. on the rates is the result of all the other measures for providing new houses. Nobody disputes that the late Sir John Ellerman, or the Ellerman Trust—for the late Sir John Ellerman may not have known anything about it—did as a matter of fact apply to the county council of Aberdeen to have 16 of their workmen's cottages reconstructed at public expense. Is there anyone to justify a thing like that? Sir John Eller-man dies and leaves £40,000,000, and his factor or his trustees—whoever it is—go to the county council of Aberdeen and get the county council to reconstruct at public expense 16 cottages on the Ellerman estates. Can anybody justify that? If it were only one case, if it were only the Ellerman case, I could understand why the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) said that one horrible example like that would scare off decent people; but it is not the only case. I have

here a letter from the convenor of the health committee in Berwickshire, sent to me on the 13th of this month. In that letter he says the worst case they had was at Legerwood, where the rent was £1,200 and the ratepayers were asked to recondition cottages at the expense of the local authority. The public put up £1,000 for the reconditioning, and two years afterwards the proprietor dies and leaves over £300,000. The proprietor was Mrs. Richardson, of Legerwood, Earlston, Berwickshire. In the case of the Usher Brewery Estates, again in Berwickshire, I think I am right in saying that 3o houses were reconditioned at the public expense.
There are titled gentry all over Scotland—in Ayrshire as well as other places —who come forward with their factors and quite unashamedly get their properties reconditioned at the expense of the public. We are now told that the means test will not be applied in these cases—oh, no. It will be applied in the case of the poor, and not only to the head of the household but to sons and daughters, to everybody who lives under the roof. Their means are looked into before any money is given for food, or clothing, or boots, or packets of cigarettes. The Government will not stop that. I notice a right hon. Gentleman sitting on the Treasury Bench and preserving a modest silence despite his promotion to another office, upon which we all congratulate him on personal grounds. Here is a Bill which he introduced into this House last week—the Herring Industry Bill. It is backed by the new Minister of Health, by the Home Secretary, and by the Minister of Agriculture. Under Clause 4 no herring fisherman is to get a grant for a new motor boat unless the boat "could not be provided without such assistance." That is the means test for the herring fisher. I put it to the hon. Member for East Fife, who represents a fishing community, and who cannot conceive how a local authority can find out the financial needs of a landowner applying for a grant, that they are going to find out the financial needs of a fisherman.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: There is a slight difference there. I have not a copy of the Herring Industry Bill in front of me and I must speak from recollection, but I think the hon. Member said that


the authorities would have to be satisfied that but for the grant there would not be a new boat provided. That is not quite the same as the position in this Bill. [Interruption.]

The Chairman: We must not drift away to the discussion of herring fishing.

Mr. Johnston: We shall have further opportunities of examining that particular means test if the Government persist in it, but I submit that it is as plain as words can make it that the grants must not be given for new motor boats if those boats can be provided out of the personal resources of the fishermen themselves. Why should not the same principle apply to the owners of house property in the rural areas? Why should the Ellermans come along? I hope that I shall not be interpreted as suggesting that every rural landlord is on the same basis. I know that some are financially embarrassed, and I quite agree that one of the strong arguments for the public ownership of land is that any number of proprietors cannot do justice to their properties because they have not the funds. I am not saying that every man with a large number of acres to his tally is necessarily a wealthy man, because often the property is mortgaged up to the hilt, but this Government, which insists upon the poor being kept on the barest minimum of physical subsistence through a family means test is spending money year after year in adding to the value of the properties of great proprietors of land and now say that there must be no test of financial inability to pay.
There is a sympathy on this side of the House for the arguments put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten), because he, at any rate, is not hidebound by Whips and Cocker's declaration, but I hope he is not going to pretend that all the public money spent by the local authorities in the Highlands and Islands has gone to the poor, or that it has gone to provide what should have been provided for in accordance with the sanitation laws. I have instance after instance of properties which have been reconstructed at public expense still being without sanitary conveniences in the house. Would the hon. and learned Member continue to pay out public money under such circumstances? I know of one case where, after a property was reconditioned, the proprietor

was served with a demolition order only two years later because the property was rotten. That kind of thing cannot go on. What the landlord class have done is to use public funds and the machinery of local government to patch up rotten old properties which should have been scrapped under the sanitary regulations for not being provided with bathrooms, water supplies and sanitary conveniences. Personally I would support houses being provided with those conveniences, but that is not what has been done, and it is because of that that a Royal Commission has reported that in Scotland there has been a grave waste of public money.

8.14 p.m.

Mr. Barr: I should like to go back to some of the statements made to-day, and particularly to what fell from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health. He quoted the Rural Housing Sub-Committee of the Central Advisory Committee. That was not a unanimous recommendation. A week ago the hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George), who was a member of that committee, told us that she disagreed with some part of its conclusions.

Mr. Bernays: I would remind the hon. Member that whatever may have been said by the hon. Lady the other day, she signed the report.

Mr. Barr: I do not wish to take up time in discussing that point. The report was of a general nature and anyone could have signed the Clause which the Parliamentary Secretary read out, but she was at great pains to state her opposition to the absence of a means test.
I would repeat what has fallen from my right hon. Friend the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) as to the very slim, I might almost say bare-faced, statement, that an owner will not reap any value at all. He will certainly get the advantage in the enhancement of the value of his property. It has been stated that the conditions attaching to this grant make it something quite different from what we know in our association with the means test. I would ask the Committee whether conditions are not attached to unemployment benefit also, and whether they are not such as to clear out of the scheme altogether many of those who are entitled to benefit. The hon.


Gentleman went on to say that the landlord did not get the benefit of the Act for himself; the tenant got it, and it was not just a personal matter. Nor is the benefit personal that is given in unemployment insurance, with which is associated the means test. Every business of whom the recipient of benefit is a customer comes to share in that benefit, and it is no more personal to him than in the case we are considering.
A week ago, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland stated that the justification for this Measure was that if a wealthy man came into a district and got his grant, the grant would not fall upon agriculture. The man would have made his money in motor cars, shipping, or beer; and therefore the grant was not coming out of agriculture but out of shipping, motor cars, or beer. The Under-Secretary seemed to think that that was putting a new construction on the matter. I should not like to misinterpret him, so I will read his words:
 All I would say is that the money to pay for it does not come out of agriculture. It comes out of shipping, or motor cars, or beer, as the case may be."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th May, 1938; col. 1315, Vol. 335.]
That amounts to saying that the wealthy man was coming back to those who had built up his fortune, and was saying to them, as to other taxpayers: "You have not done enough. I could easily do all this myself, but I wish to bring you into it. You have built up my fortune, but I wish a further contribution from you. It will be of great benefit. It will teach you to think of other trades than your own and to take an interest in agriculture as well as in your own trade. It will prevent a wealthy man spoiling his countryside with his largesse, and will put taxation broad-based upon the people's will, which is the reflex of my will." "I could have done it all myself," says this public benefactor, "but that would not be good for you or for agriculture; so I limit myself to one-third of the cost, and I will recoup myself out of the 4 per cent. interest which will come to me."
The Under-Secretary of State said quite gleefully that the man could do it all himself. He said:
 If a man makes several million pounds out of shipping or motor cars or beer, and if he spends a small fraction of his fortune on purchasing an agricultural estate, I have no doubt whatever that he personally is able,

not only to do all the improvements that are contemplated under this Bill, but to build a whole let of new houses, without receiving any money from the State."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th May, 1938; col. 1315, Vol. 335.]
He could do it all himself, but he arranges to get help from outside for agriculture, and to see that he was sufficiently recouped for any expenditure to which he was put.
In my studies in philosophy I remember that the ideal man of Aristotle was "the magnificent man," a man of vast fortune who strewed it lavishly around; but the ideal man of the Under-Secretary of State lags a long way behind Aristotle's ideal man because he is not lavish with his money. He insists that others shall be lavish with their money for his benefit. He is not a loser at any time, with his 3 per cent. or 4 per cent., and he secures that he gets as much out of his expenditure and his estate in this regard as he puts into it. This wealthy owner is favourable to the means test and he supports it throughout, as applied to the working people; but, says he, he would not have it applied to shipping or to the tramp shipping subsidy, or he and his friends would not have received the £2,000,000 per annum. If he is a brewer, he says he would not have it applied in respect of the derating that gave the brewing industry £400,000 a year continually, under the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928.
I want further to examine the operations of this wealthy man, who comes in from another industry to agriculture. My hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) has said that agriculture suffers because of the poor man; in the first parish in which I worked, in Dumfriesshire, farmers because of the impoverishment of the estate could not even get the wood which they once got, in order to repair their fences, or even get proper houses. In that respect, that was a great deal of drawback. The second report of the Rural Housing Sub-Committee of the Central Advisory Committee, to which I have already referred, calls attention to this state of affairs. As the hon. Member for East Fife said, work is held back on one side because of the poor landlord. The Rural Housing Sub-Committee said:
 A difficulty has also been experienced in certain districts of the country where cottages in need of reconditioning are occupied


by their owners, who have already mortgaged the property up to the hilt.
That is one side of the matter. On the other side, in many ways, the rich man who has come into the industry is a drawback in the carrying out of these housing schemes. Paragraph 13 of the report says:
 Some of our witnesses have suggested that certain local authorities discriminate, in their administration of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, against owners with means.
Because he is wealthy they do not give him this grant. Not only so, but when the wealthy man comes to the countryside people say: "Now we will get improvements and new housing"; but the wealthy man labours under great disadvantage. He has made his money in shipping or beer, say, and he knows nothing about the countryside. He does not know the difference between a bull stirk and a quey stirk. The man who comes into an agricultural district should be able to do so. I happen to know, because a near relative of mine was distinguished for his success in the breeding of the finest and best Ayrshire cattle. A year or two ago in the Highlands, in Ross and Cromarty, a notable Parliamentary candidate was taken to the market and shown two heifers, or young cows. He became quite enthusiastic, and said, "They are beautiful, two brothers." A man such as I am speaking of is at a great disadvantage. He knows nothing of the housing conditions; perhaps he has never visited his estate. The report on Rural Housing in Scotland states:
 On average, 75 per cent. of the working-class houses surveyed were considered to be unfit for human habitation in their present condition. Hardly any of the cottages for workers have an indoor water supply; 48 per cent. of the houses surveyed had only dry closets, and 29 per cent. had no sanitary convenience at all.
This rich stranger does not know what prevails in Scotland. He does not know that the owner is responsible for supplying the cottage, and the tenant farmer for its upkeep; and that the one plays off the other. He does not know that, in the taking of a farm in Scotland, it is the farm steading that counts, and often the cottage for the farm labourer is never visited, as was testified by Lord Lovat, himself a large landlord before the Royal Commission on the Housing of the Industrial Classes in Scotland. We reach this position, that, if these grants are not given, the tenant is likely to be deprived

of benefit, because, although the owner is well able to pay, the improvement will not be made. Therefore, it turns out that this wealthy incomer is not a public benefactor at all, but is to that extent a cumberer of the ground; he is not an ideal man, but a dog in the manger.
A week ago, when this matter was under discussion, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Stirling made reference, as is often done in the House, to what Mr. Gladstone said in 1886, and the Under-Secretary for Scotland gave a quotation from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) referring to what Mr. Gladstone said in 1867. I think it might be appropriate if, in closing, I read to this Committee what Mr. Gladstone said on this very kind of man that we are discussing to-day—the man of wealth who goes into agriculture in this way as a wealthy man. These were Mr. Gladstone's words:
 I will tell you what is worse than heavy labour, and that is idle wealth. In vain a man escapes from the destiny of hard work —even bard work with some degree of poverty—to attain to wealth, if that wealth is to bring with it the curse, the unmitigated curse, of idleness and self-indulgence. The labourer has his legitimate, his necessary, his honourable and honoured place in God's creation; but in all God's creation there is no place appointed for the idle wealthy man.
That is the kind of man whom we are now discussing. It was said by a great statesman that there were some Members of Parliament who, though not present in the body
 were still Members of this House, independent of dissolutions, of the caprice of constituencies, even of the course of time.
I think that the man who comes into agriculture from other industries where he has made his wealth, and takes up the position that, unless he gets grants, he will leave the houses as they are, is aptly described in the statement I have just quoted, and it is not for this ouse to bolster up such men.

8.32 p.m.

Mr. Sexton: I realise that there are some few agricultural workers who will receive benefit under this Bill. Even though their wages have been very meagre in their working life, they have been thrifty enough to save sufficient to buy 'their own cottages. Such thriftiness has been contributed to by the help of the wife and, it may be, the children,


who work with the man on the farm. Now that housing requirements have been raised, and conditions laid down by local authorities have to be satisfied, expenditure on such a cottage will be needed, not only to satisfy the requirements of the local authority, but also to satisfy the present needs and desires of the inhabitants. Many of these homes, while picturesque enough from the outside, are much below modern standards inside. They may have roses round the door, but there is often something worse than roses when you get behind the door. Some of them are like the while picturesque that we read about in the Old Book, lovely to look upon, but hiding terrible conditions inside.

The Chairman: I fail to see that what the hon. Member is saying applies to the proposed new Clause that we are discussing.

Mr. Sexton: With all respect, I am discussing the new Clause (Amendment as to schemes by local authorities).

The Chairman: Perhaps the hon. Member will relate his remarks to it.

Mr. Sexton: I was going to point out that the Clause would not shut out the owner of a cottage who has not the means to carry out all the requirements laid down by the local authority, but it would shut out those people who have wealth enough to do the work themselves.

The Chairman: I think the hon. Member had better come to what it is proposed that the Clause should do, and not discuss what the Clause does not do.

Mr. Sexton: The principle that public benefits should not be disbursed to those who are not in need has been enforced under other Acts of this Government. Other Acts of this Government have submitted workers to a microscopic examination of all their resources. Investigation has even been made into their houses as regards their bedding, and many delicate matters have been nosed into, in order to prevent them from getting any assistance at all. If it is wrong to subsidise such workers under the Unemployment Act, it is most certainly wrong to give money to wealthy owners of country cottages. I know many working men, not living in rural areas, it is true, who are owners of their own cottages and are

compelled to do certain repairs without any assistance at all. Because of that, I think we should add this Clause to the Bill, and submit the wealthy people to the means test which has been so drastically applied to the workers under other Acts of this Government.

8.36 p.m.

Mr. Macquisten: I must congratulate hon. Members opposite on putting down this Clause and on the eloquent use they have made of it to speak of the unhappy lot of those who are subject to the means test, which we all deplore but which I do not think we are sufficiently advanced yet to get rid of. This is a suggestion that a similar test should be applied to landowners. I can say that there are no wealthy landowners in the Highlands, unless they are new acquisitions. I have always looked on land as a liability. No man owns land; the land owns the man; and if he comes to it with a fortune, in a couple of generations it is taken from him by the State. The extraordinary thing is that the land is valued with all its amenities at a very high sum, and the owner, or his descendants, have to find the money somewhere to pay it. That is why the landowners who have held these estates for any length of time are so poor that they cannot assist the farmers by giving them the houses, lands, steadings, drains or other things that they used to give them. I certainly think this Debate will do a great deal of good, because it will call public attention to the fact that there are these men who have made large fortunes and who want to become country gentlemen, and that there is a substantial body of opinion in this House that they should not make application for these funds.
It has been said by hon. Members that this is a benefit to the landlord, and that it increases his wealth, but if the landlord is not allowed to increase his rent it is no benefit to him to spend money on making the agricultural labourer's cottage better. He will not be in pocket from it at all, as far as I can gather from the Minister's explanation. He will certainly have the satisfaction of seeing that his cottages are not in the shabby, insanitary condition that they were before. That is all the altruistic goods he gets from it; and it will depend on his disposition whether that gratifies him or not. It is always astonishing to me how some


wealthy men spend their money. They want to he popular, they spend their time on the back of a horse or on a yacht; but they do not think of doing good to human beings. There was a chief who said to the English landlord who was boasting of his rent roll, "My rent roll is 500 men." That is not the landowner's spirit; but we had no landowners in the Highlands, we had chiefs, and there are still some of them left. It is a great grief to these men to see how badly their people are housed. These men are not wealthy, though a few who have made money in commerce and come there may be. I want to see the agricultural workers getting decent houses.
I am shocked to learn from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) that, notwithstanding this expenditure of money, these people are not getting the houses for which the grants were given—that the houses are not being properly reconditioned. If that is so, it is because the local authorities have not the necessary determination or power to insist that the proper reconditioning should be done. Many owners have spent a considerable lot of their own money in reconditioning, and this grant has been a stimulus to them to do so. We do not want to see people living in these insanitary conditions. If by making a test of this kind any delay would be caused, it should not be done. But I must recur to the fact that the landlord will not get any benefit; in fact, he and his heirs may lose money as a result of the Bill, through the Death Duties, that they will have to pay if they have a well-equipped estate with good-looking cottages on it.

Mr. C. Brown: Does the hon. and learned Member suggest that this is a device by the State to get higher duties?

Mr. Macquisten: I would not put anything past the tax collector. Nothing has done more harm than the duties that have been levied upon estates. With Death Duties up to 50 per cent., people with large estates have found it impossible to carry on. That is why they have had to sell out to the brewers and shipowners and others who come to the Highlands with a totally wrong idea. They think landowning is commerce. But it is not. I remember one occasion when I was on a ship off Kirkwall, passing St. Margaret's

Hope, I saw a beautiful little steading. I said to the purser, "That is a lovely little farm. I wonder what the rent is? I suppose about £50." "No," he said, "It is £2 Ios." I expressed surprise and he said, "It belongs to Lord Shetland, and Lord Shetland would never rent a man on his own improvements. If it had been some Glasgow merchants who buy land and want 5 per cent., up the rent would have gone." We should help landowners to look after their people and to get the people properly housed. If I thought that these grants were going into the personal pocket of the landowner, I would support this Clause. But that is not the case.

Mr. T. Williams: Is the hon. and learned Member not aware that the Bill enables the property owner to add to the rent of the cottage 4 per cent. of the sum that he has put down?

Mr. Macquisten: Of his own money.

Mr. Williams: He is able to increase the rent by 4 per cent. of the amount of his own money which he has put down; and since he cannot get 4 per cent. for Government stock or bonds, he is not losing a lot, even if he is not making a lot of money. And is the hon. and learned Member aware that at the end of 20 years the owner can sell the property?

Mr. Macquisten: He cannot do anything unless it is let for money, and it is only 4 per cent. It is on his own money and not on the money advanced. He gets only the agricultural rent. Nobody can pretend that owning agricultural cottages is an investment of any account. It is not an investment into which anybody would put money. The trouble and difficulty of collecting would make it a futile investment. It is useful only for the farmer and the land which the people inhabit. I wish that some of these wealthy men who have taken to landowning, partly because it is in the blood of every Britisher to own land, would realise that it is their duty to put up really first-class dwellings for the people. The largest problem of agriculture is housing. I know of a very big man in agriculture who went into it in middle life with great enthusiasm. Be told me he had no difficulty whatever in getting labour because he put up first-class cottages. The men competed for them,


and he had no difficulty in getting the very salt of the labour of the country. Some people do not understand that. I feel that if this Clause is passed there may be some danger that the men will not get the cottages as soon as they ought to get them, and it is not going to enrich the landlords. If we have to support a Measure of this kind which might lead to trouble, friction and difficulties, we ought to see that all agricultural workers are reasonably housed, and if anything were to hinder that, I should be inclined to oppose it.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: I am considerably astonished at the arguments which have been advanced by the Parliamentary Secretary. The main theme of his speech was that the owner, under this Bill and under a scheme in respect of which he will receive State money, will not be benefited. In the first place he will receive an increased capital value directly due to the application of State money, and, secondly, under the Bill, this added capital value can be disposed of at will in the market either by himself or by his heirs and assigns.

Mr. Macquisten: Does the hon. Gentleman mean to assert that the man who purchases will be allowed to raise the rent?

Mr. Adams: Yes.

Mr. Macquisten: No, he will not.

Mr. Adams: I am not dealing with the question of raising the rent, but he is certainly permitted to charge an additional rent when the reconditioning is completed.

Mr. Macquisten: On his own money.

Mr. Adams: I was dealing with the point that this new value will have precisely the same effect as if it had been created by any other method, and it will be at the disposal of the owner of the cottages, who will be able, in a perfectly legal way, to sell that added capital value to the best bidder and so deprive rural workers urgently in need of such accommodation. In certain areas, where such accommodation is to-day scarce, it will be found that, by virtue of this Bill, the whole of the cottages will be disposed of after the reconditioning has taken place

and that large areas will be entirely deprived of such provision. It is left to the local authority, therefore, under the Housing Acts, to make the necessary provision. There is another very important thing that every capitalist thinks he will have, and that is, the proper utilization of his capital resources. Thus, being relieved by the State of the necessity of using his own capital, he will have that capital at his disposal and so be able to utilise it in any other way that he may think fit. That is a very important advantage which the owner of such cottages will enjoy under this Measure if the Clause is not allowed to go through. It should be an obligation upon all owners to recondition their cottages in harmony with the present-day standards, and relief should be granted only in the case of need which has been proved.
It is something to be compared with the means test which is applied to the unemployed workman seeking relief that we are suggesting here. This is quite common with many local authorities. Both municipal and voluntary hospitals apply a test of this character. A person who seeks relief and ccommodation—I know that that is the case with the Newcastle City Council General Hospital—is charged according to a certain standard of income, and the person who is without financial resources receives hospital treatment free. But in the voluntary hospitals there is another basis, and very large fees indeed are charged to persons who have the means with which to pay. The corporations of the country fixed their standards upon which they were prepared to advance loans on mortgage on property to owner-occupiers at a figure which would exclude the better-placed and wealthier citizens. They excluded persons whose means were above a certain standard. When we use the term "means test" we do not mean a means test that will inflict hardship upon the individual, but one which will protect the resources of the State and of the local authority. When the borrowing capacity of local authorities is increased and advances are made in various directions it adds to a certain extent to the additional burden of those who comprise those local authorities. The unemployed means test is of an entirely different character, and has resulted in the reduction of the physical standards of the community, and, surely, it cannot be alleged that that is what is


going to occur in this case. Local authorities and the State admit the necessity of persons in receipt of unemployment relief and suffering under a means test having relief in respect of free meals for their children and free milk is supplied to nursing and expectant mothers.

The Chairman: We cannot discuss that matter on the Clause which is before the Committee.

Mr. Thurtle: Is not the hon. Member entitled to reinforce his argument by means of an analogy of that kind?

The Chairman: Only within such limits as the Chair thinks fit.

Mr. Adams: I do not wish to strain your good will in this matter, Sir Dennis, but I wanted to show that the means test as we know it has no relation at alt to the means test as known to hon. Members opposite. We are merely seeking by this Clause to preserve the municipality and the State from the injustice that would be perpetrated by making grants to persons well able to supply their own financial needs, and who, if such needs are met, will make a profit.

8.55 P.m.

Mr. S.O. Davies: I regret that the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) has left the House, because the reference he has made this evening to justify the Government's opposition to this Clause is about the weakest contribution he has ever made to Debate. May I say, very regretfully and respectfully, that it was not nearly as interesting as the hon. and learned Member's contributions generally are. The Opposition have been congratulated on their adroitness in placing this new Clause before the House. The Clause is absolutely consistent with the attitude of the Opposition all along the line in trying to mitigate the evils of the system of subsidies and doles which this Government pours into the pockets of the richer classes.
The arguments that have been used tonight to justify the opposition of the Government to the Clause are amazing. I am confident that the rich people will not thank the spokesman of the Government for the callous exposure of the meanness of rich people generally. We have been told over and over again that if this new Clause were accepted, and if a means test were imposed upon people who, under

the Clause, are regarded as rich people, those people would make no contribution towards improving the appalling housing conditions that obtain among the rural workers. The hon. and learned Member for Argyll said that there are no rich landlords in the Highlands. Therefore, I know of no reason to prevent his going into the Division Lobby to support us on this Clause. The Clause is not intended to affect poor landlords. It is not like the other means test to which reference has been made over and over again. That is a means test that hits the poor, but this is a means test that is intended to be applied to the rich people.
We have had most interesting revelations by those who have spoken against the Clause as to the ethics of wealth and those who possess it. We have been told that if the rich landlord is not to be assisted, notwithstanding how colossal his personal wealth may be, he will not make a contribution towards the improvement of housing among the rural workers. We are told that to impose this means test would destroy the hope of improvement. Nothing from these benches has ever been said more strongly in condemnation of rich people and their patriotism and the ethics which animate them in the disposal and the gathering of their wealth. I protest strongly against the misleading statement that has been repeated to-night that this Bill is not a dole for the landlord, but that the benefit goes to the tenant. That is absolutely misleading. It is a well-known fact that the low rent which the agricultural labourer is called upon to pay is regarded as additional wages for him. What he apparently gains on the one hand he loses in terms of wages.
There is nothing adroit in this Clause being put down. It was not put down in anticipation of what will be said in this House to-morrow. It is not a demand for the means test on admittedly rich people in anticipation of the protest that will be made to-morrow against the appalling conditions under which the poorest, who have the means test imposed upon them, live. It will be very interesting to see the Government Whips put on to-night in order to bring into the Lobby as many as possible of those who impose the means test upon the poorest, to protest by means of their votes against a means test being imposed upon those


who are admittedly rich and have more than enough of the wealth of this world. I am glad that the Opposition have placed the new Clause on the Order Paper, because it exposes the hyprocrisy of this Government when it imposes a means test upon the poorest while pouring millions of pounds into the pockets of the rich.

9.2 p.m..

Mr. Tomlinson: It has often been said that in this country there is one law for the rich and another for the poor. I have never heard anything that has impressed that truth upon my mind more than the Debate that has taken place on this Clause. The only arguments used against it from the Government side were based upon the assumption that this Clause could not be worked if it were adopted. The hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) and the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. H. Stewart) both suggested that it would be very difficult to fix a standard, and that the only way in which we can implement the desire behind the Clause is by letting moral suasion play its part. In other words, if the speeches that have been made in the House were read by the rich people they would not dare to ask for money in order to recondition their cottages, that we should not by legislation seek to implement our desire but suasion should have its place in our national life. Time and time again the suggestion has been made not only in this House but in the country that that same moral suasion should act in another direction. We have always been told that it would be impossible not to apply a test in granting public money, without making inquiries. We have been told that to do so is to commit a great wrong against the State. That is when we are giving money to the poor, but when money is being given to the rich, or the reputed rich, the suggestion is made that moral suasion alone should play its part.
The peculiar argument that has been developed on the other side of the House, that property is not improved in value or that a man's wealth is not improved when his property is improved, leaves me guessing. Not only does it improve the capital value of the property when it has been reconstructed, but I would ask what is the position of the property before the reconstruction begins? If it has got into a certain state I suggest that it has lost its value, it has become uneconomic, and

the only way in which it can regain an economic value at all is by money spent upon it by the State and the local authority, plus the one-third which the individual himself spends. In suggesting that he is putting rent only on the one-third which he contributes you are losing sight of the fact that he has changed an uneconomic into an economic unit by the fact that he has taken advantage of this Bill.
Those people who pride themselves on their conception of property and the values attaching to property are giving the Opposition very little credit for knowing anything at all about economic values. Houses which are to be reconditioned, if they were a few miles away and in an urban area, would be abolished and no compensation paid. The Government have accepted the principle that bad houses are a crime; like bad meat they are a danger to the community and should be abolished. You do not compensate a butcher if you find that he is exposing for sale meat which is diseased. Therefore, why should you help an owner of diseased property to make it healthy and to pay him for making it healthy? We suggest that the people who can afford to do this work themselves should be called upon to do it, in other words, that a means test should be applied. I hate a means test in any direction, but I cannot understand how any hon. Member can vote against this means test and at the same time worship at the shrine of the other. It seems to me that the Bill has a good foundation, a Scriptural foundation:
 For whosoever bath, to him that hath shall be given; and whosoever bath not shall be taken even that which he seemeth to have.
A means test is applied in the Bill. The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin) on the Second Reading asked the Minister of Health whether a smallholder whose cottage had got into disrepair would rank for grant in the same way as a landlord, and the answer of the Minister was, yes, provided the economic situations are the same as those of an agricultural labourer who is living in one of these cottages. What does that mean? It means that the smallholder, unless he is brought down to the stage in which his economic condition is no better than that of an agricultural labourer, cannot recondition his cottage under this Bill.

The Chairman: He would not be affected by the new Clause. I really must ask hon. Members to keep to the Amendment.

Mr. Tomlinson: I am illustrating the point which I think is relevant.

The Chairman: I cannot allow illustrations to go to the length they have gone.

Mr. Tomlinson: I am asking that the Amendment shall be accepted because the principle behind the Amendment is in the Bill. The illustration I have given, as

Division No. 207.]
AYES.
9.11 p.m.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Pearson, A.


Adams. D. M. (Poplar, S)
Groves, T. E.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Adamson, W. M.
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Poole, C. C.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Price, M. P.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Pritt, D. N.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hardie, Agnes
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Banfield, J. W.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Ridley, G.


Barr, J.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Riley, B.


Batey, J.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Ritson, J.


Bellenger, F. J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Sexton, T. M.


Benson, G.
Hopkin, D.
Shinwell, E.


Bromfield, W.
Jagger, J.
Silverman, S. S.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Simpson, F. B.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Chater, D.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly>


Cluse, W. S.
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cooks, F. S.
Lawson, J. J.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cove, W. G.
Leach, W.
Stephen, C.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Logan, D. G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng).


Daggar, G.
Lunn, W.
Summerskill, Edith


Dalton, H.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Thurtle, E.


Davies, S.O. (Merthyr)
McEntee, V. La T.
Tinker, J.J.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
McGhee, H. G.
Tomlinson, G.


Ede, J. C.
MacLaren, A.
Viant, S. P.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Maxton, J.
Walker, J.


Evans, D.O. (Cardigan)
Messer, F.
Watkins, F. C.


Fletcher, U.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Milner, Major J.
Watson, W. McL.


Frankel, D.
Montague, F.
Welsh, J. C.


Gallacher, W.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
White, H. Graham


Gardner, B. W.
Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Williams, O. (Swansea, E.)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmare)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Oliver, G. H.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Owen, Major G.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Grenfell, D. R
Paling, W.



Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Parker, J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Parkinson, J. A.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Charleton.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. C. J.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Critchley, A.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Crooke, Sir J. S.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.


Albery, Sir Irving
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Cross, R. H.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Bull, B. B.
Crossley, A. C.


Assheton, R.
Burghley, Lord
Crowder, J. F. E.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Butcher, H. W.
Davidson, Viscountess


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Butler, R. A.
De Chair, S. S.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Campbell, Sir E. T.
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Cary, R. A.
Danville, Alfred


Balniel, Lord
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Dower, Major A. V. G.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral X. P. H.
Channon, H.
Duncan, J. A. L.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Edmondson, Major Sir J.


Beechman, N. A.
Christie, J. A.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.


Bernays, R. H.
Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Erskine-Hill, A. G.


Birchall, Sir J. 0.
Clarry, Sir Reginald
Fleming, E. L.


Bossom, A. C.
Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.


Boulton, w. W.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Fyfe, D. P. M.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Goldie, N. B.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Cox, H. B. Trevor
Gower, Sir R. V.


Brass, Sir W.
Craven-Ellis, W.
Grant-Ferris, R.

to how the Bill will affect a smallholder in seeking to apply it, calls at any rate for similar treatment for those people who are well-to-do. I suggest in the interests of equity that the Government can do no less than accept the Amendment, which imposes the principle that the people who can afford to pay must pay for necessary improvements.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, Noes, 188.

Gridley, Sir A. B.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Grimston, R. V.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Macquisten, F. A.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Maitland, A.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Hannah, I. C.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Harvey, Sir G.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Markham, S. F.
Spens, W. P.


Haslam, Sir J. (Balton)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Heilgers, Captain F, F A.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Storey, S.


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark. N.)


Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Holmes, J. S.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Tasker, Sir R. l.


Hopkinson, A.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Horsbrugh, Florence
Nail, Sir J.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Hulbert, N, J.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Wakefield, W. W.


Hume, Sir G. H.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Hunter, T.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Hutchinson, G. C.
Petherick, M.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Joel, D. J. B.
Procter, Major H. A.
Warrender, Sir V.


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Keeling, E. H.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Wayland, Sir W. A


Kerr, Colonel C. l. (Montrose)
Ramsbotham, H.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Wells, S. R.


Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Rayner, Major R. H.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham:


Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Remer, J. R.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Leech, Sir J. W.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Wise, A. R.


Levy, T.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Womersley, Sir W. J-


Liddall, W. S.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Wood, Hon. C. 1. C.


Lindsay, K. M.
Rowlands, G.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Lipson, D. L.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. (


Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Russell, Sir Alexander
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Lloyd, G. W.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)



Lyons, A. M.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.ߞ


McCorquodale, M. S.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Mr. Munro and Mr. Furness.


MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Shakespeare, G. H.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment as to power of local authorities to make grants or loans.)

Paragraph (e) of Sub-section (2) of Section two of the principal Act shall have effect as if at the end thereof the following words were added—
 and (without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision)—

(i) will, except where otherwise approved by the Minister on the recommendation of the local authority, contain a bathroom with a fixed bath; and
(ii)will, as respects the walls or other partitions of the rooms used or intended to be used as bedrooms, comply with the requirements of decency."—[Mr. Greenwood.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. Greenwood: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This new Clause is intended to amend the powers of local authorities to make grants or loans. In the 1926 Act, it was provided, in Section 2, Sub-section (2, e), that the grant or subsidy should not be given unless the dwelling was made fit in all respects for human habitation. It

would be of advantage if the principal Act were amended to include certain other elementary human conditions. The first to which reference is made in the new Clause is that, except in special circumstances—and one can visualise special circumstances in remote cottages—there should be a fixed bath in a bathroom. As I said in the Second Reading Debate, the right hon. Gentleman opposed a similar proposal which I made in 1924, but I hope that now he will be good enough to accept the proposal, and to agree with the general case which we made on the Second Reading and which has been made in regard to several Amendments to-day, namely, that the reconditioned houses should conform to modern standards. The second point, which I think is one that will commend itself to all hon. Members, is that the internal structure of the cottage shall be such as to preserve the conditions of decency. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, as long as he remains with us in his present office, will do something to assist with regard to some of these proposals. I do not think he is necessarily in opposition to the principles


of this new Clause, which I feel sure will commend themselves to him, and I shall be very glad if he can do something to meet us.

9.22 p.m.

Sir K. Wood: I think I can say at once, speaking on behalf of my Department perhaps for the last time, that we are in general agreement with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) in the objects which he has outlined and their achievement. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that in this matter there is a difference between England and Scotland, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Which one?"]—the one who is now sitting beside me—has had to take exceptional steps in regard to the position in Scotland. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will disagree with me when I say that the position in England is somewhat different. In England, the local authorities, whom we have trusted, as we would desire to do and as our democratic system allows, have carried out their work quite effectively, and one does not hear—I have not myself heard—of the complaints which one sometimes hears in Scotland. When the Housing Advisory Committee examined this matter and heard a very large number of witnesses, there were no complains in this respect as far as one can gather, in relation to England.
I remember that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield, in the course of the speech which he made in the Second Reading Debate, indicated that, in his opinion, there were certain steps which we might take in England, particularly in the direction to which he has referred this evening, and he indicated that we might do so by regulation or by communication with the local authorities. I think that in England we might very well continue the practice of trusting the local authorities, adopting the method that we have generally adopted, of being more of an adviser, a counsellor and a friend. I certainly had in mind—and I have no doubt my successor will take the same view—that so far as England is concerned we should lay special stress on some of the matters which the right hon. Gentleman has indicated to the Committee. In our communications with the local authorities I believe it is very important indeed that we should emphasise

that the grants which are to be made under this Bill are not available for repairs. We should also say that houses for which grants are to be paid should not be merely sanitary and watertight, but should be satisfactory and comfortable homes.
I would, however, suggest—and I think the right hon, Gentleman took the same view when he was Minister of Health—that the precise works which are best adapted to secure this result must necessarily vary, and to a very large extent that depends on the circumstances of each case. Each local authority in England should apply its mind to the particular application that is before it. Quite recently in a communication which I made to the local authorities, and particularly in a pamphlet which, I think, has been found satisfactory and has been of some use to them, we have indicated what we regard as the essentials of a good house. But if we prescribe a minimum there may be a considerable danger of it becoming, in fact, a maximum, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that one of the objectives at which we should aim is the provision of a bath and the introduction of modern methods of sanitation.
I certainly had it in mind to urge the local authorities to do everything possible to induce owners to include these items among the works to be carried out where —I emphasise this—the local conditions of water supply and drainage permit it. But from the point of view of practical business and of obtaining the best we can for the agricultural worker we must allow the local authorities some latitude in dealing with proposals for the reconstruction of existing houses. I should be the last to suggest that we should deprive the agricultural worker of the opportunity of getting a house which possesses modern amenities because it does not possess them all. The difficulty I see in some of the statements made in the House on the Second Reading of the Bill—not by the right hon. Gentleman—is that if you made it a strict condition that a bath or a bathroom should be provided you would be very much open to the danger of an owner saying, "I am prepared to do this and that for the improvement of this cottage"—we will say putting in better windows, better ventilation and dealing with damp and that kind of thing; but if,


in addition to that and as a preliminary condition you were to say, "You must also have a bathroom or a bath," he might very well turn round and say, "Well, all I am prepared to spend on this property is some £150, and I really cannot do more." If one took up that attitude I think the Committee will see that there is a real danger of a number of agricultural tenants not obtaining considerable improvements.
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with the general indication I have given that we will endeavour to carry out in spirit what I think is the general opinion of the Committee in relation to the improvement of the housing of agricultural workers. I certainly think that good standards are as essential for them as for the dwellers in the towns, but I do see danger in hard-and-fast rules. My Department will certainly maintain the closest association with the local authorities, which I think is one of the best features of the work of the Ministry—both in the time of the right hon. Gentleman and now. It is an association not brought about by autocratic methods, but the local authorities are regarded as wise people who are endeavouring to help us. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will feel that in the statement I have made we are pursuing the best methods of securing the housing conditions for the agricultural workers which we all desire.

9.32 p.m.

Sir P. Harris: As usual the right hon. Gentleman is very persuasive, and I have sympathy with what he said about allowing latitude, but we have to be realists—he claims himself to be a realist. The real trouble of the last Act has been that the use of valuable powers has been largely confined to counties, such for instance as Devonshire, where they have shown great initiative and enterprise in using those powers and have produced a great improvement in the housing of the rural workers. In such an area we can leave almost complete discretion to the local authority; but on the other hand there are counties which are largely in the power of reactionary owners of property, who have very low standards, and if discretion is left to those local authorities I am afraid it will mean the continuance of the bad old standards of

the past. I think we are all, including the right hon. Gentleman, agreed that we want to keep rural workers on the land and stem the drift to the towns, but the rural workers are entitled to the same standards as the town workers.
We had a great fight at one time for the fixed bath. I was responsible for carrying an Amendment on an old Bill. It was considered by some people on our side rather a revolutionary thing to introduce such a thing as a fixed bath into an ordinary cottage, but there is a stronger case for a bath in a country village than in a town, where there are public baths and washhouses within reasonable distance of the people's homes. On the other hand, in a rural village, if there happens to be a lake, stream or pond, that is the labourer's only chance in summer time of a real dip. With the discretion allowed in the proposed Clause —and it gives discretion to the local authority—I think it would be a good thing to get something of this kind into the Bill as a recognition that if old cottages are to be preserved—as I wish them to be because of their picturesque character—they must come up to modern standards, inside as well as outside.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. Price: The suggestion has been made that this proposal would place undue pressure upon local authorities, but in my opinion no local authority which is at all progressive, would object to these conditions. On the contrary, I think that only the most backward authorities, or those which are in the hands of reactionary landowners, are likely to object. The Minister also seemed afraid of laying down hard-and-fast rules about these matters, but surely these requirements are essential if we are to have the minimum of decency in rural housing. The provision of baths and of proper partitions between rooms is essential to decent housing.
As regards baths, it may be argued that in certain districts water supplies are insufficient and that it would be difficult to meet this requirement where water is not laid on, but it would be possible, even where water is drawn from a well, to have a system of pumping the water into a tank on the roof and to provide a tip-up bath in one of the rooms. These baths do not take up much space and could be supplied from a cistern if the water was


pumped up in the way I suggest. That is technically possible even where water is not laid on, and I do not see why these conditions should not be imposed. I am sure local authorities would have no difficulty in seeing to their enforcement. Of course, if there were exceptional circumstances which prevented these conditions being carried out, then those cases could be exempted with the approval of the Minister, but I think that necessity would seldom arise. Knowing the disgraceful conditions which prevail even now—though they were much worse in the past—both as regards proper water supply and the provision of proper partitions, it is time that steps were taken to expedite improvements of this kind, and I hope that the Minister will reconsider this matter.

9.38 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I was disappointed with the Minister's pronouncement. He began by saying that it might be the last time he would address us on behalf of the Ministry of Health. I could not help thinking that he could hardly have taken a less appropriate way of bidding farewell to his present Department. I was alarmed when he proceeded to point out that conditions in this respect are worse in Scotland than in England. I suppose that is why the Secretary of State for Scotland is to be transferred to the Ministry of Health. I recognise that the capacity of English Tories is so poor that they cannot find, for a purely English office, an Englishman or a representative of an English constituency. But there was no need to rub in the fact that the new Minister of Health is receiving that appointment, because he has had experience of worse conditions than those which exist in England, and, therefore, may be expected to accept a lower standard than the present Minister.
The hon. and gallant Member for Kingston-on-Thames (Sir P. Royds) and I were, until recently, in a joint capacity, the largest landowners in the county of Surrey as members of the county council. I cannot imagine that our experience as landlords, was very different from that of the majority of agricultural landlords. We were again and again pressed by our tenants—the farmers—to repair and improve the cottages because, they said, "unless you do so, we cannot get a reasonable choice of labourers." Labourers in these days are very particular

about the kind of cottages in which they put their families, and I am not at all impressed by the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the provision of a fixed bath would be the last requirement which would break the landlord's heart, when he came to ask for this subsidy. I believe the benefit of this Measure to the landlord is very considerable. It enables him to get a better choice of labourers. There is another consideration which weighs heavily with many landlords. It enables them to keep their tied cottages, and there are still many of them who know the benefits, from an economic point of view, of being able to bring pressure on the labourer by keeping him in a tied cottage.
I do not, therefore, accept the right hon. Gentleman's argument about what will happen if we ask for these things in England. I do not profess to know about Scotland. I know as little about Scottish local government as the new Minister of Health 'knows about English local government, and therefore I make no statement about Scotland. I shall doubtless have to listen later on to a Scotsman making statements about England with the usual dogmatism of his race. It does not follow that I shall be convinced by dogma. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman that you are likely to scare landlords off from making applications in England if you put in these stipulations does not impress me. I only wish that the right hon. Gentleman, in flying from his present office to another, had left in his last will and testament as Minister of Health something better for the English agricultural labourer.

9.43 p.m

Sir Ernest Shepperson: Hon. Members above the Gangway need have no fear about supporting the right hon. Gentleman in his determination to trust the local authorities, because I assure them that that trust will not be abused by the local authorities. Those authorities are strict. I, unfortunately, have had some experience of reconditioning cottages, and I found great difficulty in supplying all the requirements of the local authorities. Therefore, I assure hon. Members that they need have no fear of the local authorities as regards compelling landowners to recondition houses in a manner to make them suitable for the agricultural


labourer. Hon. Members above the Gangway, to a large extent, represent the urban areas of England, and I suggest to them that in the case of cottages in rural areas, with the advantages of fresh air and the amenities of country life, the conditions need not be as stringent as in the urban areas.

9.45 P.m.

Mr. Tomlinson: The speech to which we have just listened is the best argument that could be advanced for this Clause. It proves beyond a shadow of doubt the necessity for laying down minimum standards. I was amazed that the right hon. Gentleman should suggest that there is a danger of the minimum becoming the maximum. We have heard that so often that it has lost its effectiveness. I am prepared to allow for that, providing your minimum is a decent minimum. If you can guarantee a decent minimum standard, I think you can leave the maximum to look after itself. What has been the minimum when we have left it either to the local authorities or to public opinion? The effect of leaving it there and not laying down standards has been that a very low standard has been, not accepted, but pressed upon the rural worker.
It is a strange but true reflection that until the local authorities did begin to lay down standards, the only people who had baths in their houses were the people who never got dirty. Perhaps the Minister might think about that. In the little village in which I spent the first 25 years of my life the man who had a bath in his house was the manager of the pit, who never went down the pit, but none of the colliers had a both. The same thing applied to the people who worked on the land. The gentleman farmer had a bath in his house, but none of the people who got dirty on the land had a bath, and not until local authorities began to lay down standards and insist as a condition that a house should have a bath did we begin to realise the necessity for workers, as workers, having baths in their houses at all. I claim that the man who is working on the land is entitled to this simple amenity; and in the second place this Clause is suggesting a common standard of decency to be insisted on.
Surely it is not too much to ask that, in an Act of Parliament under which

public money is being spent, a definite minimum should be established. The Lancashire County Council have laid it down that unless a bath is provided, they will not consider a cottage ranks for grant. What the Lancashire County Council, in their wisdom or otherwise, have decided is a minimum requirement, surely we can put into an Act of Parliament, saying, as this Clause suggests, that without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, this requirement should opera-ate. I do not think the Minister need worry about the minimum becoming the maximum. If he is prepared to put into the Bill a minimum for which payment will be made, I think he can congratulate himself on having done some little thing that is worth while.

9.48 p.m.

Mr. Dunn: I have some difficulty in trying to convince myself that the Minister is wise in offering resistance to this new Clause, because, after all, he was responsible for bringing before this House the 1935 and 1936 Housing Acts, which have had a very disturbing effect upon this country with regard to the question of overcrowding. Many of us think and feel that the standards that were then fixed are working very unfairly and very hardly in many of the districts which are trying to do their job faithfully. It seems to me that the Minister to-night, in resisting this Clause, in its application to houses for rural workers, has totally forgotten the standards for which he himself was responsible in regard to housing matters generally, and I hope he has not done so. I believe that a bathroom is just as essential to an agricultural labourer or a farm worker as to any other section of the community. What right has anybody to assume that a farm labourer, because he is a farm labourer, should be looked upon as a person to be totally disregarded from the point of view of the general provisions which apply to other people?
In the Act of 1935 the right hon. Gentleman was rightly concerned that the sexes should be properly divided, and as I understand this new Clause, it simply seeks to lay it down that before any grants are made for the reconditioning of cottages, the sexes shall be properly divided in those cottages. Surely that is not too much to ask. It is not too much to ask that the man who works on the


land should have proper facilities for himself and his family to wash decently, and it is not too much to demand, I suggest, that the standard that the Minister himself set up in 1935 should be applied to these reconditioned cottages before the owner receives a grant. The Minister asks us not to press these people too hardly. They have not been really good people in the past. They have neglected to house their workers properly and to pay them decent wages, and they have, left undone all sorts of things, as far as the agricultural labourer is concerned, but now, if you put these old, dilapidated cottages into something like a respectable condition, we are not to press the landlord either to put in a bath or to divide the sexes within the cottage itself.
I cannot understand the right hon. Gentleman's reluctance to accept a Clause of this kind. I do not think the country will appreciate that public money should be given to private landlords to recondition tied cottages and that you should deny to the agricultural workers in rural England reasonable amenities within the reconditioned cottages. In these circumstances I think the Minister even now should reconsider the position. I have in mind four agricultural labourers' cottages, in not one of which is there a bath or are there reasonable partitions for the sexes; worse than that, although there is a public water supply within the village itself, not one of those houses has been put on the town water supply; and even worse still, there is no outside lavatory accommodation for one of those cottages. All the refuse from the cottages is simply deposited into the stream, at the bottom of the hill, out of which the cows drink their water. The Minister says that they are prepared to allow from £100 to £150 to be spent in putting these houses in order, but the best thing to do with them is to pull them down. The agricultural labourer ought to be housed under the same conditions as the urban dweller. The acceptance of this Clause would give some hope to the agricultural workers in the isolated parts of the country that this House genuinely desires that they should have the same facilities as are given in other parts of the country.

9.56 p.m.

Mr. Greenwood: I feel disappointed about the Debate to-night. We have been dealing with a deathless horseman who

has been here and yet has not been here. We have a Minister who is not responsible and a new Minister who has been passing the time talking with the Lord Advocate for Scotland because their partnership is to be dissolved forthwith; and we have not had anyone paying any attention to the Debate. The right hon. Gentleman does not care what anybody says in the Committee to-night. He is really not interested, but before he leaves for higher regions I want to remind him of the history of this new Clause.
We have taken, on Second Reading and in Committee, a perfectly consistent line. In the 1923 Housing Act, with which the right hon. Gentleman was concerned, there was the requirement for a fixed bath. In the 1924 Housing Act we laid it down that the fixed bath had to be in a bathroom. The right hon. Gentleman kept me up all night on that occasion and I have never forgiven him for it. That has been the law of the land for all State-aided houses. We have consistently taken the line on this Bill that if public money is to be provided for privately-owned houses in order to improve their condition, then, as far as is reasonably practicable, this House ought to conform to the standards laid down in Acts of Parliament for houses for which public money is provided. That is a perfectly simple case, and I do not understand the right hon. Gentleman's reluctance to accept it. He has accepted no Amendment of substance to this Bill, and he is prepared now that he is going to regions 20,000 feet high —[An HON. MEMBER: "He will get a harp. If he gets a harp we shall never see him again. The right hon. Gentleman is shackling the country for four years with a Bill which will permit, indeed encourage, private landowners to utilise public money for their own advantage. The agricultural worker is as much entitled to decent amenities as the town worker, and if, as is still the law of the land in normal circumstances, there has to be a bath and a bathroom, for State-aided houses, why should it not apply to these people who are now utilising public money to improve cottages which will remain in their private ownership?
The second point with regard to requirements of decency has far more weight in rural areas than in town areas, although there are circumstances in towns which are very bad. Why should there


not be decent bedroom accommodation? I opposed the Government on their overcrowding Measure, for, as I have said on more than one occasion, I would never agree to a standard of overcrowding which regarded the living room as a bedroom. That is not the problem in the rural areas. It is there the problem of the loft with no partitions. Is not the right hon. Gentleman prepared to provide a standard of decency there where public money is to be expended? We have had the best of the argument to-day so far,

and the right hon. Gentleman has put up no case. If the Committee care to divide against this new Clause and say that they do not think that the agricultural worker ought to have a fixed bath in a bathroom and that there should be no proper arrangements made for decency in bedroom accommodation, then they can say it.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 118; Noes, 191

Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Lindsay, K. M.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Lipson, D. L.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Llawellin, Colonel J. J.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Fleming, E. L.
Lloyd, G. W.
Sandys, E. D.


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Loftus, P. C.
Scott, Lord William


Furness, S. N.
Lyons, A. M.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Fyfe, D. P. M.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Goldie, N. B.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Gower, Sir R. V.
McKie, J. H.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Grant-Ferris, R.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Macquisten, F. A.
Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Grimston, R. V
Maitland, A.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Grittan, W. G. Howard
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Spens. W. P.


Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)


Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Storey, S.


Hannah, I. C.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark. N.)


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.
Tasker, Sir R. l.


Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Titchfield, Marquess of


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A J.
Wakefield, W. W.


Holmes, J. S.
Munro, P.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Hopkinson, A.
Nail, Sir J.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Horsbrugh, Florence
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Hulbert, N. J.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Warrender, Sir V.


Hume, Sir G. H.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Hunter, T.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Hutchinson, G. C.
Petherick, M.
Wells, S. R.


James, Wins-Commander A. W. H.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Procter, Major H. A.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Joel, D. J. B.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Ramsbotham, H.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Keeling, E. H.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Rayner, Major R. H.
Wise, A. R.


Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Remer, J. R.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Ropner, Colonel L.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Leech, Sir J. W.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)



Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Rowlands, G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Levy, T.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Mr. Cross and Lieut.-Colonel


Liddall. W. S.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Kerr.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Local authorities to publish annual reports.)

(i) Every local authority shall publish annually a report of their proceedings under the principal Act, and such report shall contain, among other things, the following particulars, namely:

(a)the names and addresses of the owners to whom assistance has been given;
(b)the houses in respect of which such assistance has been given and the works carried out or to be carried out in respect thereof;
(c) the amount and nature of the assistance.

(2) A copy of such report shall be supplied to any local government elector within the area of the local authority applying therefor upon payment of such sum, not exceeding sixpence, as the authority may fix.—[Mr. Johnston.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. Johnston: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I trust this proposed:new Clause will command widespread support in all parts

of the House. It is designed to secure that local authorities shall publish annual reports of their activities under the Act, and that the annual report shall provide for the names and addresses of the owners of the houses to which assistance has been given, the works carried out, and the amount and nature of the assistance afforded, and that the report when printed shall be made available to any local government elector at a price not exceeding 6d. I submit that if public money is to be given to private individuals it should not be done in secret. If it is right and proper that an individual should receive assistance, surely there can be no harm in the people who pay a third of the cost, that is the local government electors, being made aware of where the money goes. I ask hon. Members opposite, Is there anything unreasonable in that proposition? It is the esesnce of local government that the people should know precisely where their local rates go, and if there are some authorities who


are at great pains now to hide from the local electors how the money is expended that state of affairs ought to be terminated as early as possible.
The hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart), in a speech earlier this evening, agreed that the utmost publicity should be given by the local Press to expenditure under this Act, but we have no control over what the local Press may or may not publish. In some areas the local Press may publish the information and in other areas they may be ashamed to publish it. A newspaper proprietor might be ashamed to publish the fact of the late Sir John Ellerman, with his £40,000,000, coming along with his hat in his hand cadging for the reconditioning at the public expense of 16 houses on one of his estates. Usher's Brewery might be ashamed to have the fact published that their cottages were reconditioned at the public expense. I have already referred to the fact that 7d. in the £ of the local rates goes in expenditure under this Act, whereas only id. goes in expenditure under all the other Housing Acts combined, in the production of new houses.
We are entitled to ask, therefore, that the greatest possible publicity shall be given to the expenditure of public money upon what is at the best, in some instances, a very dubious proceeding. The public pay; why should not the public be aware of where their money goes? Hon. Members of this House, some on these benches, have told me to-night that they have refused to have their cottages reconditiond at the public expense. One of them said that he was able to do it himself and he declined to go to the public funds for assistance. Well, there may be many gentlemen all over the country who would refuse in the same way, but there are also many other people who are less finicky in these matters and who have no hesitation whatever in taking public assistance if they can get it. That relates to the names and addresses of the beneficiaries. What about getting particulars of the class of subject upon which the moneys are expended?
In the last Debate, the right hon. Gentleman declined to make it a condition of grant that minimum standards of sanitation should be laid down. We had the

opinion expressed that county councils would see to the matter. I have a memorandum here containing detailed answers to a questionnaire sent out to practically every parish in rural Scotland by the Farm Servants' Union. After getting all the replies from their branches as to what was happening in every parish, they made this comment:
 A very large proportion of the houses which have been reconstructed under these Acts are so radically defective in structure that it is impossible to bring them up to any reasonable standard of habitability. They remain damp, with inadequate windows, without proper storage facilities, with unventilated concrete or stone floors and without water closets. In many instances, money has been spent in providing the minimum statutory requirements and in carrying out repairs which were overdue without doing anything to the existing accommodation. In some houses, even the minimum statutory requirements have not been provided. While houses which have been repaired are better than they were, many of them have been given a new lease of Life when they ought to have been closed, and a definitely lower standard of housing is perpetuated for farmworkers than is accepted for other workers.
That is the comment of a responsible trade union organisation, upon evidence submitted to them by their branches. I can give the experience of some 14 counties in Scotland. I can give the name of the parish and show that, so far from the Act being a public benefit in the way it has been administered in the past by local authorities, it merits the description of the majority of the Royal Commission, composed of political friends of the right hon. Gentleman, when they said that there was the greatest waste of public money. They say that it is a great waste of public money. What does the report say about Kirkcudbright? I will take the parish called Haugh of Urr, where houses have got the grant without water, without water closets, and with defective rhones. In another parish called Shawhead it is reported that the local authority have given a grant, and after the grant there is no water or water closet. If you take any county you like in Scotland, you will find that the conditions are pretty nearly the same. In Roxburgh itself grants have been given to houses with leaky roofs and which were damp and smoky.
It is idle for the Government to say that this kind of thing can continue and that there ought to be no publicity. I do not say that in every case there has


been waste. I personally know of poor people who have received benefit under these Acts. Every poor housewife who gets water laid into her home where she has previously had to carry it in buckets for a quarter of a mile or more has received a benefit. But what I do say is that a large part of the money expended under these Acts has been swallowed up by very wealthy proprietors—swallowed up in doing repairs which they ought to have provided for out of their own resources. I do not say that that is so in every case. I believe there are some large owners in the South of Scotland who are honestly trying to provide benefits under the Act, but, speaking by and large, there has been a waste of public money.
In proposing this new Clause we ask that at any rate there shall be publicity, for publicity is the only public safeguard. We ask that there shall be a record of names and addresses and the other particulars set out in the Clause, and that any local government elector who wants the record shall be able to get it on payment of 6d. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, who pretend that they are the guardians of the public purse, ought to come into the Lobby with us on this occasion at least. If it is right that the property should be reconstructed, no harm will be done by publicity.

10.24 p.m.

Mr. Bernays: I will try to dispel from the minds of hon. Members opposite this cloud of suspicion, for which there is really no occasion, about the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman talks about secrecy, but there is no question of secrecy in connection with these grants. He would surely admit that no grant can possibly be obtained unless the local authority is fully acquainted with all the circumstances under which the application is made. No such requirements as those involved in the proposed new Clause are attached in any other Housing Act to subsidies granted by local authorities for the erection of new houses, including the Wheatley subsidy. I ask the Committee to reject the Clause, because we believe that its requirements are quite unnecessary, and that they would place a heavy burden on local authorities. The Government do not see any purpose in their insertion in the Bill, except to discourage owners from applying for grants if they

would prefer that their names should not be published. We come back to the question of who is going to benefit under the Bill. It is, we argue, not the landlord but the tenants. Therefore, the result of discouraging owners from applying for grants would be to deprive agricultural workers and similar persons of the benefits which it is intended to bestow on them. It is my right hon. Friend's object not to discourage owners from applying but to increase very considerably the number of cottages improved; and I ask the Committee to reject this Clause, because the Government believe that it would diminish the number of cottages that would be reconditioned for agricultural workers.

10.27 p.m.

Sir P. Harris: We have listened to a very remarkable speech. I thought the hon. Gentleman was going to say—and there would be a good deal to be said for such an argument—that the Clause was unnecessary. I thought he was going to argue that these requirements would be necessary under the ordinary Local Government Acts. But he put forward the remarkable argument that if there were any publicity as to who was to get the grants landowners would be discouraged. I have considerable experience in the London County Council, and so has my right hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison), who, I think, will confirm my statement, that there is no precedent in local government for grants being given to a private individual unless they pass through the minutes of the local authorities. But the hon. Gentleman put forward the extraordinary argument that we should not pass this Clause, because if we did landowners would not apply for assistance, as they would resent publicity. It is inevitable that if money were given by the London County Council it would have to go through the Finance Committee, and in due course be published in the minutes of the council.
All that this not very revolutionary Clause proposes is, as I understand it, that there should be published once a year a summary, which could be got for 6d., of the various people who received grants under the Act. I believe that most well-run authorities will publish an annual report of the proceedings of this particular committee. There is certainly no harm in this Clause. Whether it will make any


great difference I do not know, but I respectfully suggest that the case put up by the Minister is thoroughly unsound. As far as my knowledge goes, it will be necessary, under all the regulations of the Ministry, for these grants to appear in documents which are open to the public.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Ridley: I doubt whether any minor piece of legislation has ever been piloted through this Committee with so many expressions of narrow class prejudice as has been the case in connection with this Measure. Here is a piece of legislation which proposes to provide public money for the renovation of private houses without any means test at all and with the minimum amount of secrecy. I wish that the same regard expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health with reference to the tender susceptibilities of landlords could be expressed by the Minister of Health or the Minister of Labour when many hundreds of poor women in my constituency have to toddle down the street and ask for public assistance in order to obtain a few extra shillings with which to make life more tolerable than otherwise would be the case.
I turned to the Debate on the Second Reading of the Housing (Rural Workers) Bill in 1926 and discovered that the then Minister of Health, the present Prime Minister, said that, in justification for transferring the powers of rural district councils to county councils, a man would be too sensitive to apply to a district council because he would have to do so in the presence of his friends and his neighbours. The Parliamentary Secretary seems to shake his head in denial of the accuracy of the statement which I now make, and I will therefore repeat the words. The then Minister of Health justified the transfer to the county council on the ground that a man would be too sensitive to have it known to his friends and neighbours that he was applying for public assistance in this fashion. If he had to apply and it was known that he was making this kind of application, he would be ashamed to make the application in many cases, and therefore the application would not be made. I wish that the same regard were had to many hundreds and thousands of working-class women to-day

who, because of the means test and the need for seeking public assistance, have to go in full view of their neighbours and friends, and seek a kind of public assistance which enables them to make life a little less intolerable. The hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart), who is not in the Chamber at the moment, always reminds me of what was once said of another hon. Member of this House, that he had opinions but had no convictions.
The hon. Member for East Fife, who was supported later in the Debate by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten), said that he was all in favour of a kind of publicity in respect of a class which was under discussion at that moment. An opportunity is now provided for the hon. Gentleman and the hon. and learned Gentleman to secure the kind of publicity which it seemed at that moment they wanted. All that this new Clause seeks is that there shall be information made available which will enable us to know who seeks relief, who gets it, the reason why he seeks it, in what direction the relief shall be applied, how much relief he seeks and how much relief he gets? If the disbursement of public money is not to be accompanied by some kind of publicity, it can only be supposed that, on the Government side of the Committee, this matter is to be enshrouded in such mystery and secretiveness that will increase the suspicion which hon. Members have on this side of the Committee that this is a piece of class legislation and that the Government desire to be as secretive as possible, and to avoid the natural and voluntary publicity which the acceptance of this new Clause would give. The Debate and the Division will be, in their essence, a revelation of the class view which the Government take on this question.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. Ede: In less degenerate days the Minister of Health would have jumped to the Box, when my right hon. Friend rose to move this Clause, and would have apologised for having omitted such a Clause from the Bill. He would have assured us that it was an oversight and would have blamed it upon some miserable draftsman or some other person who was not here to speak for himself. I am


under no cloud of suspicion about this matter, because ever since the passing of the original Act I have participated in its administration. When the newly appointed Secretary of State for Air made an appeal to the county councils of England to work the Measure, because he thought that some of them had not worked it in the past as they might have done, I took part in trying to get the Act more fully worked.
I would say to the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), whose local government experience has been very largely with the London County Council, that the London County Council, with all its great advantages in the width of its services, can hardly be described as a rural housing authority. In the county that I know best these matters are not published. The agricultural committee considers the application originally, and only the county agricultural officer knows the names of the applicants. In order that there shall be no prejudice, the applicant is referred to by initials. [Interruption.] We do not make a convict of him, but we refer to him by initials. In the whole of the records he is referred to by initials, and unless you happen to spot who he is, there is no real publicity. When, as chairman of the Surrey County Council, I was rather suspicious about certain initials and had the documents produced, I found that the initials concealed a Peer of the Realm. That was quite consistent with the arguments adduced at one stage of his speech by the Parliamentary Secretary, and the statement of the present Prime Minister, which was quoted by the hon. Member for Clay Cross (Mr. Ridley). The only other people who are so treated by the Surrey County Council are the applicants for public assistance whose individual cases have, for certain reasons, to be reported to the County Council. I suggest that that is a very good analogy to bear in mind. It is recognised that this is a form of public assistance, and that in some cases those who go there can do without it.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that although this was already done, we should be imposing a heavy burden on the local authorities by insisting upon it. That argument was inconsistent with his other arguments. I cannot believe that in any county this would be a very heavy

duty to impose upon the local authority. It is essential that it should be known who are the people who are to get these grants, under the very limited conditions that are now attached to them. I do not believe that it would be altogether to the detriment of an owner making an application, because I stick to the belief that in the rural areas to-day it is by no means a bad thing for it to be made known in regard to a particular farm or a particular estate that it is a place where some attention is given to providing good cottages.
I sometimes meet people who complain of the independence of the modern agricultural labourer, and particularly the independence of his wife. I have been assured by those who have come to me and asked that their cottages should be reconditioned, that nowadays the agricultural labourer brings his wife when he comes to inquire about a job. She goes into the cottage, and if it is not up to her liking she is quite likely to tell him to turn it down. Apparently the agricultural labourer's wife in circumstances like those determines whether he shall take the job or not. Therefore, if people who take this money get some publicity and it becomes known that they are trying to get their cottages put into a proper condition it may prove to their advantage in securing better labourers and in persuading their wives to come with them. I hope the Committee will insist that where public money is being given without a means test and in very limited conditions, publicity shall be given to the names of the persons who. receive it and the conditions which are attached by the local authority.
It is evident from the report read by the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Johnston) that many of these grants have been given under conditions which do not warrant the expenditure of public money, but if it were known to the labourers and other interested parties what conditions were imposed, it would enable local authorities to find out whether the conditions had been complied with. I hope the Division Lobby will show that there are still a few people listening to an ex-Liberal Parliamentary Secretary who think that the old canons of the Liberal party with regard to public money being accompanied by public control still hold good. We were told in


the "Sunday Express" that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health had many searchings of heart with regard to his position. I can only hope that on this occasion his searchings of heart will have a rather better conclusion than the "Sunday Express" 'thinks they have led him on other occasions. One could hardly believe that it was an hon. Member calling himself a Liberal making the speech he delivered just now. I hope the Committee will insist on the Amendment being inserted in the Bill.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. Loftus: I intervene in the Debate only because, like the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), I have been concerned with the detailed administration of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act since it was passed in 1926. May I say that I did not wait until I received a circular from the Ministry to start advertising the Act in every conceivable way in the local Press. On the question of publicity, I am astonished at the speech of the hon. Member in which he described the procedure of the Surrey County Council. It differs so vastly from the procedure of my own county council. The procedure there ensures absolute publicity so as to make this Amendment absolutely unnecessary. What happens is this. All applications come before a sub-committee of the general purposes committee, with the full name, full details, and reports by the county architect. Then they come before the general committee in a printed agenda with full details, the name of the -holder of the property, the amount expended on the property, the amount of the grant asked for and the amount of the grant given, and the amount of the rent fixed for the next 20 years. In addition, that report is printed in the quarterly agenda of the county council, so that every member of the county council can see every quarter a full and detailed statement of every grant, the name of the owner of the cottage, the total expenditure, and the amount of rent. Therefore, I suggest that the new Clause is unnecessary.

Mr. Ede: There is nothing in the original Act or in the amending Act which makes that procedure obligatory on a county council.

Mr. Loftus: I was going to suggest that -the new Clause, which involves extra

work being placed on county councils, is utterly unnecessary because the Minister has power to make local authorities follow the procedure which is followed in my own county and, I believe, in most of the counties of England.

10.46 p.m.

Mr. Paling: Surely, the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) supported the new Clause, for everything he said contradicted the arguments of the Parliamentary Secretary. The hon. Member said that his county council are doing everything which the new Clause provides should be done, that they do not find it any particular trouble, that it does not involve any great expense, and that it works very satisfactorily. That is what we are asking from the Minister.

Mr. Loftus: No. I suggest that the new Clause asks for the whole procedure of a special annual report. My submission is that in the ordinary course of procedure of the ordinary county council, it is embodied periodically in the agenda, and that therefore the new Clause is entirely unnecessary.

Mr. Paling: Perhaps we are asking in the new Clause for slightly more than is done by the hon. Member's county council, but if there was as much publicity in this respect throughout England as there is in the case of the hon. Member's county council, we should not be proposing this new Clause. The county council to which the hon. Member refers gives information which other county councils do not. I was astonished by the speech of the ex-Liberal Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health. The hon. Gentleman was amazed that anybody should want any information about this public money which is being given to landlords. His Liberalism, if ever he had any, must have altered a bit. I think we ought to have this information. About 12 months ago, I raised the case of a landlord in Norfolk who was nearly a millionaire. He had a house reconditioned, and I was told that the house was almost pulled down and rebuilt; inquiries were made into the matter, and eventually the subsidy was withdrawn. What the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary are saying, in effect, is that there are many wealthy landlords throughout the country who own rotten houses which they will not repair, and that in order to compel them to do what


should be their public duty, they have t.£ be bribed and given £2 of public money in every, £3 which they spend on a house. They say that if the fact that we have to pay them is to be published, we cannot expect them to do their duty. That is a pretty state of affairs for an ex-Liberal to support.

Mr. Bernays: That is a travesty of the Bill.

Mr. Paling: Perhaps we need not be surprised that such arguments should come from the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister in a Government which has adopted that attitude in regard to public money. The Government are giving subsidies in the case of agriculture, and in almost every department of life now. I remember that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), when he was a Liberal, said that the Tory party were always putting their hands into the public purse for the benefit of private individuals. The Tory party is doing that to-day more than ever it did in its history. It is because of that fact that the publicity sought for in this Clause is needed as a deterrent.

10.50 p.m.

Mr. Lipson: I do not know if hon. Members opposite are aware how many county councils adopt the procedure which has been described by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus). In Gloucestershire we adopt exactly the same policy.

Mr. Ede: To my knowledge Surrey is not the only county council that acts in the way I described.

Mr. Lipson: The truth of the matter is that those who are supporting this Clause have no faith in the Bill, and no faith in county council administration, and therefore they are not bringing up this question of publicity where it can and should be dealt with, and that is in the county councils. I agree as to the value of publicity, but publicity at the proper time and the proper time is when it is proposed to make a grant. That is the publicity we give in Gloucestershire. We very often have a debate lasting for an hour or more as to whether or not a grant should be made, and that report is published in the local Press. Hon. Members opposite who are not satisfied with the way in which the Act has been

administered in their own counties, or with the publicity that is given, should deal with the matter at that end. There is only one test that should be applied to this Clause: Is it going to improve the working of the Act, or is it not? I think, after the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary, landlords are likely to be deterred from making applications if they know that every year a list will be published of those who receive grants. If this particular piece of county council administration is to be singled out for a procedure that does not apply to its other work, the county councils will feel less inclined to have resort to the Act. Because I believe in the Act and want to see it fully worked, and because I believe the Clause is likely to hamper it, I shall vote against it.

10.53 p.m.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I do not know who is in charge of the publicity side of the Government now that the right hon. Gentleman is leaving for the Air, but I think that it is a very big order to arrange the business of the House so that to-day we are discussing this Bill and to-morrow the Vote for the Ministry of Labour. I hope full publicity will be given to the contrast between the general attitude adopted to-day and the attitude we shall see tomorrow. We have been discussing one means test to-day and we shall be discussing another to-morrow, and the country will be able to note the class bias on the other side of the House. The Parliamentary Secretary made a speech tonight in which he gave a justification for the means test. His colleague the Minister of Labour belongs to the same section of the National party and I hope he will get a copy of the hon. Gentleman's speech to-night in which he justified the means test on the ground that the benefit was ultimately passed on to the tenant. I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates how destructive that argument would be of the arguments advanced in favour of the means test applied by the Government to the unemployed.
The hon. Gentleman's speech to-night was amazing, coming from one who voted for the setting up of the Unemployment Assistance Board and for a system of prying into private lives of poor people. The Government send their investigators not merely into the houses of the poor people, but actually into their bedrooms


in order to see whether the bed clothes need replacement or not. That is what they do to these poor unemployed who have to ask for public assistance, but when it comes to rich people who ask for public money in order to enable them to recondition their property, then we are told by the Government "We must be very careful." I would like the same consideration shown to the unemployed. I have seen applicants for public assistance having to queue up in the streets. No consideration whatever is shown for their feelings, but every consideration must be shown to the feelings of the well-to-do who are also applicants for assistance from the State. I hope the country will note this extreme consideration on the part of the Government for the feelings of rich people in connection with these grants, and the extreme contempt shown for the feelings of the poor people who have to apply for public assistance.
An hon. Member opposite asked what right we had to impose this task and this burden upon the officers of county councils by asking them to make out a list such as is proposed. For several years the people of the two largest counties in South Wales have been fortunate in having Labour majorities in control of the county councils, and it ill becomes hon. Members opposite to talk about added burdens on county councils when we consider the fact that 95 per cent. of the time of the Conservative party in South Wales is spent on trying to have inquiries made into the circumstances of poor labouring men. Talk about investigation—it is not investigation: it is prying. If hon. Members opposite will only ask the clerk to the Glamorgan County Council they will find how many communications he gets from the Conservative party in that district about matters of this kind. Of course, those communications are not sent in the name of the Conservative party; they are sent in the name of the Economic League, just as this Government is not called a Conservative Government but a National Government. Then hon. Members opposite talk about adding to the burdens of the county council. It is they who are adding to the burdens, and I hope the country will be made aware of the fact. I hope that our own party's publicity agents will publish to-day's and to-morrow's Debates in this House side

by side to show how the National Government speak about the means test for the rich to-night, and how they will speak about the means test for the poor to-morrow. When the country realises the difference, the day will be nearer when we shall have another Government.

10.58 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I wish to try to clear up a misapprehension, while supporting this very important Clause. It has been suggested that if you give publicity to these matters, you will deter landlords from applying for the grant. There could be no greater mistake. I do not care how much publicity is given to it, or how it is blazoned forth, you will never deter these people from coming forward for the grants. We had a discussion recently about the £66,000,000 of loot which the royalty owners are getting. Are they concerned about publicity? Why, in another place they are complaining that they have not got enough loot. You dare not turn your back on the till while they are about. But there is another reason why they are afraid of publicity. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) has drawn attention to the case of certain of the people who have been getting a share of this grant. When they pass to a happier or a hotter plane one sees in the newspapers that they have been unable to take with them some £2,000,000 or £3,000,000.
A friend of mine has told me of a case of a widow who had been getting some relief from a public assistance committee, but she was insured, and she left a will in which she left her insurance money to this friend who came to see me, and her insurance money is being held up because the public assistance committee are going to make a claim. If you give publicity to the case of Lord So-and-so, who has been granted £200 or £300 of public money for reconstructing his property, and you find that he has a will leaving £500,000 or £1,000,000, what will happen? The people who are acquainted with the case of this widow will want to know why the public authorities are not getting after this particular crowd and taking the money back. Mention has been made of the means test. It is very nice to sit down and discuss what money you are going to give to your own pals, but if you have a public statement issued that So-and-so, with an income of £10,000 a year, is getting £200


or £300 of public money with which to repair his property, what are the men and women going to say who are getting hit by the means test, not even legally, but who are actually having extra-legal methods used against them?
We had questions asked in this House about young men and women who got jobs away from home and who had to keep themselves, but the means test officials included their income in the family income, and when the Minister was challenged about it and asked about his legal rights in the matter, he could not give them. Do you think the people of this country will stand for that sort of thing? When you get a list made out showing how public money is being squandered and how these wealthy people are deliberately getting their hands into the public purse, do you think the people will stand for that sort of thing? No. I deny that the acceptance of the Clause

Division No. 209.]
AYES.
[11.5 p.m.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Poole, C. C.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Price, M. P.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Pritt, D. N.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hardie, Agnes
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Banfield, J. W.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Ridley, G.


Barr, J.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Riley, B.


Batey, J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Ritson, J.


Bellenger, F. J.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Hopkin, D.
Rothschild, J. A. de


Benson, G.
Jagger, J.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Broad, F. A.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Sexton, T. M.


Bromfield, W.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Silverman, S. S.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Kelly, W. T.
Simpson, F. B.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (s. Ayrshire)
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Charleton, H. C.
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Chater, D.
Lawson, J. J.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cluse, W. S.
Leach, W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cocks, F. S.
Leonard, W.
Stephen, C.


Cove, W. G.
Leslie, J. R.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Logan, D. G.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Daggar, G.
Lunn, W.
Summerskill, Edith


Dalton, H.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Thurtle, E.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
McEntee, V. La T.
Tinker, J. J.


Davies, S. 0. (Merthyr)
McGhee, H. G.
Tomlinson, G.


Dobbie, W.
MacLaren, A.
Viant, S. P.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Maxton, J.
Walker, J.


Ede, J. C.
Messer, F.
Watkins, F. C.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Milner, Major J.
Watson, W. McL.


Evans, D.O. (Cardigan)
Montague, F.
Welsh, J. C.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R, T. H.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
White, H. Graham


Frankel, D.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Gallacher, W.
Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Gardner, B. w.
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Owen, Major G.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Paling, W.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Grenfell, D. R.
Parker, J.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Parkinson, J. A.



Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Pearson, A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Mr. Groves and Mr. Adamson.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Aske, Sir R. W.
Balniel, Lord


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. C.
Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.


Albery, Sir Irving
Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

would in any way prevent these landlords from applying for cash or that it would retard the operation of the Act. The Government are afraid to accept the Clause because they dare not give publicity to the spending of public money on the private property of landlords and at the same time carry on the operation of the means test and the public assistance committees' investigations that are being conducted at the same time against the poor. I ask hon. Members who have any feeling or sense of justice at all to support this proposed new Clause and to give the greatest possible publicity to what is going on in connection with this Act, so that it may strengthen the fight to put an end to the means test against the poorest people of the country.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 120; Noes, 196.

Beechman, N. A.
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Procter, Major H. A.


Bernays, R. H.
Hannah, I. C.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Ramsbotham, H.


Boulton, W. W.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Rankin, Sir R.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R,
Rayner, Major R. H.


Brass, Sir W.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Holmes, J. S.
Remer, J. R.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Hopkinson, A.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ropner, Colonel L.


Bull, B. B.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Burghley, Lord
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Rowlands, G.


Butcher, H. W.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Butler, R. A.
Hunter, T.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hutchinson, G. C.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Cary, R. A.
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Sandys, E. D.


Channon, H.
Joel, D. J. B.
Scott, Lord William


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Keeling, E. H.
Selley, H. R.


Christie, J. A.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Shakespeare, G. H.


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Colman, N. C. D.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Conant. Captain R. J. E.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Leech, Sir J. W.
Spens, W. P.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Levy, T.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Craven-Ellis, W.
Liddall, W. S.
Storey, S.


Critchley, A.
Lindsay. K. M.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Crooke, Sir J. S.
Lipson, D. L.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lloyd, G. W.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Cross, R. H.
Loftus, P. C.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Crossley, A. C.
Lyons, A. M.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Titchfield, Marquess of


Cruddas, Col. B.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Davidson, Viscountess
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Davison, Sir W. H.
McKie, J. H.
Turton, R. H.


Denville, Alfred
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Wakefield, W. W.


Dower, Major A. V. G.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Duggan, H. J.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Duncan, J. A. L.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Markham, S. F.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Warrender, Sir V.


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Fildes, Sir H.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Fleming, E. L.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Wells, S. R.


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Furness, S. N.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Goldie, N. B.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Gower, Sir R. V.
Munro, P.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Grant-Ferris, R.
Nail, Sir J.
Win, A. R.


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Grimston, R. V.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Palmer, G. E. H.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W)
Petherick, M.



Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Captain Hope and Major Herbert.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment as to approval of schemes)

Sub-section (i) of Section one of the principal Act (which relates to the submission of schemes by local authorities) shall have effect as if at the end thereof the following proviso were added:

"Provided that the Minister shall not approve any scheme unless he is satisfied that the dwellings in respect of which assistance is proposed to be given will after the completion of the works conform as near as may be to the standard of comparable dwelling-houses towards the erection of which contributions may be made out of moneys provided by Parliament under the Housing Act, 1936."—[Mr. Johnston.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

11.13 p.m.

Mr. Johnston: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
At this late hour it may suit the convenience of most hon. Members if I make my observations brief. This Clause is designed to secure that the Minister shall not approve of any scheme unless he is satisfied that the dwellings in respect of which assistance is sought will, after the expenditure of the grant, be up to the standard, as near as may be, of comparable dwelling-houses towards the erection of which contributions may be made out of moneys provided by Parliament


under the Housing Act, 1936. In other words, the Minister has to satisfy himself that the houses being reconstructed shall be houses in which decent working-class families can be reasonably expected to live. It is no good any Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Health saying that that is the common practice. It has not been the common practice in the past. What it may be at this moment I confess that I do not know. There have been cases within our experience in which, after expenditure of public money upon reconstruction, the reconstruction has not satisfied reasonably decent standards.
I turn again to the report of the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee, which has been so much quoted to-night. The majority report included the report of an inquiry by an inspector—not a politician —sent out by that committee. He reported upon III houses which had been reconstructed with the aid of a grant under these Acts. There were 66 houses in Jedburgh, 19 in Inverarity and 26 in Tarbat. In addition, there were 18 houses under construction in Jed-burgh and two houses under construction in Inverarity. His report says that out of III houses
 only 57—just over half—were considered to have been satisfactorily reconstructed. Of the others, some had no sanitary convenience whatsoever "—
after reconstruction and the expenditure of public money, they had neither wet nor dry closets—
 some were badly lit, while many were damp. Altogether they gave the impression that the schemes had not always received very careful consideration. A relevant point of interest is that in Jedburgh all of the 26 unsatisfactory houses were done before "—

that is to say, they had had two goes at it—
 and all the 4o satisfactory houses during the regime of the present senior sanitary officers. '
What does all this mean? It means that the county council in some areas, packed with representatives of the landlord class —[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh !"]—surely that is self-evident—have been approving the expenditure of public money upon houses which, after that expenditure, have been shown to be damp and without sanitary conveniences of any kind. Tonight I have given one case of a house which was passed for grant and two years afterwards was reported by the sanitary

authorities and the medical officer of health as fit only for demolition. I put it to hon. Members: You have refused publicity, and have said that it would be putting county councils under an unnecessary condition. You have said, "Let them all come alike. Let the millionaires come; well and good." Surely in this matter you will insist upon a reasonable standard of housing being provided under these Acts, that the houses shall be as fit as may be for decent folk to live in and that we shall no longer submit to a condition of affairs such as is set out in the report which was made to the Secretary of State for Scotland and from which I have just read.

11.20 p.m.

Mr. Wedderburn: I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the principle of this proposed new Clause is not very different from the principle of the earlier Clause which my right hon. Friend felt himself unable to accept. The earlier Clause did not, however, deal with general terms, but with certain particular provisions which the right hon. Gentleman desired to insert in the Bill. My right hon. Friend explained that he did not think it would be right to withhold certain valuable benefits from the occupants of these houses simply because every other desirable benefit could not be introduced, and I think we should be bound to resist this Clause by the same argument.
The right hon. Gentleman referred particularly to the report of the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee and to certain houses in Tarbat, Inverarity and Jedburgh. I have already made some observations on that subject, not only on the Second Reading of this Bill, but also nearly a year ago, when the report itself was debated. It was debated twice in the House, once on the Adjournment and once on the Scottish Estimates. I am not going to discuss now—it really would not be necessary or relevant to this Clause—the question whether the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee were justified in drawing the conclusions which they did draw from an examination of the small number of houses which they inspected in those parishes. As, no doubt, the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the Association of County Councils in Scotland have issued a statement declaring that the houses inspected were not typical, and


gave a misleading and distorted picture. But, to put it at its very lowest, the report did show that there were a few houses—some 50 or so—which had not been satisfactorily reconditioned, and that these 50 houses were not in the area of the same local authority, but in three different parts of Scotland. In these circumstances I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that my right hon. Friend was right in requiring, as he did very shortly afterwards, that in future all proposals for the improvement of houses should be submitted to the Department of Health. I referred to the relevant circular on the Second Reading last week.
There were some local authorities which rather resented having to submit their plans to the Department of Health—authorities which have been doing a great deal of work under this Act, and whose areas had not been given any attention by the Committee. One can appreciate that they do not, perhaps, like having to submit their plans to the Department. But it would have been invidious for my right hon. Friend to distinguish between the local authorities which are liable to do so and those which are not. I read out to the right hon. Gentleman last week what we said in the circular which the Department of Health issued last year:
 It should also be observed that the Department will not be prepared to agree to the giving of assistance if, after the execution of the works, the dwelling will not contain an inside water supply, water-closet and bath unless they are satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to provide these conveniences.
Since 1st January, when this new decision of the Department came into force, the great majority of the plans submitted have been approved without any variation, and most of the remainder approved with small variations suggested by the Department. As for England, I read out last week the substance of the circular which the Minister of Health proposed to issue, and he also referred to it again, this afternoon. I think that, by these administrative methods we are doing all that is possible to see that houses are reconditioned under this Act in the most satisfactory manner possible. If this Clause were carried, the building bylaws would, in future, apply not only to new buildings but also to structural alterations of old buildings, and the local authority would, I think, have very great

difficulty in making a reconstruction in some cases, where the by-laws in regard to height of roof or size of windows might not fit in suitably with schemes designed to preserve the appearance of old houses. I think that, by administrative action, we are doing all that is practicable to ensure that reasonable standards of comfort are observed.

11.29 p.m.

Mr. Greenwood: I feel that we are under a difficulty to-day, because we have had a phantom Minister. It has been very difficult. The new Minister sits on that bench and frowns upon me at this moment, and, having collective responsibility in the Cabinet, he must know all about this Bill. While Cabinet crises come and go—[Interruption]—Oh, yes, they will come and go, and return. This Bill has been dealt with in a very cavalier manner to-day. It is a Bill which has none of the high-lights of the international situation, but it does indicate the attitude of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite on the problem of rural housing. I have said that we have put forward a perfectly reasonable case on this question. If sums of public money are to be devoted to the reconditioning of houses in private ownership, those houses ought to conform to the standards required for new houses built with State assistance. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said that they had arguel this question on an earlier new Clause with regard to baths. I am within the recollection of Members of the Committee who were present when I say that they did not argue it, but that they refused to accept it.
For what are we asking in this new Clause? We are only asking that where public money is devoted to improving existing houses, they shall conform as near as may be—we are giving away our whole case and I am sorry we have to do it—to the standards set out under the Housing Act, 1936. Are right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite prepared to pay out public money to houses under public ownership which do not conform to the standards which have been repeatedly observed in legislation in this House ever since the Housing Act, 1919? Is that the attitude that the new Minister of Health is taking? We are entitled to ask whether this is the policy of the Government. The ex-Minister of Health, who is now anticipating, I suppose, flying the heights that


are unknown to most of us, to-day stated quite frankly his view on this matter. He was prepared to do what he could by administration. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has also said that they will do what they can by administration. Why not put these words into the Act of Parliament? In a way I am sorry that my name appears at the head of this new Clause because we are giving our case away, but we want to get something if we can. I ask hon. Members opposite whether it is not reasonable to ask that at least this public money should be expended on houses which conform as near as may be to standards in the Housing Acts where the Government pay the direct subsidy. It is no good hoping, for I fear that hon. Gentlemen opposite will not accept it. We have been treated with the greatest discourtesy. I do not believe that ten words of what I have said have been listened to by right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite to-night.

Sir P. Harris: They are very excited.

Mr. Greenwood: Of course, they are excited, but I am only saying that I think we have been treated with the greatest discourtesy in this Committee. We have had no arguments adduced against the perfectly reasonable Amendments which have been put forward. We think that the Government ought to compromise on this matter. If they do not compromise, they will be convicted, quite definitely, on the case that has been made, of having most shamelessly, with the assistance of public money, given help to the private landlord.

11.35 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Elliot): The right hon. Gentleman has complained that we have not been listening to him. I listened very carefully to what he said. He has also complained that the Committee is being treated with scant discourtesy because the Minister of Health was not answering on all occasions.

Hon. Members: Which Minister of Health

Division No. 210.]
AYES.
[11.40 p.m.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Banfield, J. W.
Broad, F. A.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Barr, J.
Bromfield, W.


Adamson, W. M.
Bellenger, F. J.
Brown, C. (Mansfield)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Bonn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)


Atlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Benson, G.
Charleton. H. C.

Mr. Elliot: It has been repeatedly stated in the Debate that my right hon. Friend is flying to higher spheres, which are far beyond my humble hopes. I must ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite to believe that I have done my best to listen very carefully to the case that he has made. I think I may fairly claim that I understand the subject matter because as Secretary of State for Scotland I had not merely to consider the Housing Committee's Report, which, as the right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) knows well, is a very valuable document, but I had to issue several circulars, bringing the lessons of that report to the notice of local authorities.
In the proposed new Clause there is merely an expression of opinion. The words are, "as near as may be." The right hon. Gentleman says that the Ministers themselves will be the judges. Surely, the right hon. Gentleman will agree that that is practically saying that by administrative methods we shall do our best to improve the standard, and that a circular from the Department may have the same effect as the words which are put into this new Clause. The right hon. Gentleman asks us to compromise. Will he accept this compromise that, upon the passing of the Bill, we will issue a circular or a manual to the various local authorities, bringing to their attention the new Statute and the salient points which we hope will be duly observed in connection with it? I shall do my best to ensure that a reasonably high standard is enjoined upon the local authorities, and I shall also do my best to persuade them to adopt it. The standard which is to be. adopted will be, "as near as may be," a good standard of housing. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take that assurance from me and that he will agree that it is not necessary to put it in the Statute, but to leave it to my discretion. I would' ask the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee to accept that assurance.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 109;, Noes, 164.

Chater, D.
Jagger, J.
Pritt, D. N.


Cluse, W. S.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Cocks, F. S.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Ridley, G.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Kelly, W. T.
Riley, B.


Daggar, G.
Kirby, B. V.
Ritson, J.


Dalton, H.
Kirkwood, D.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Lawson, J. J.
Rothschild, J. A. de


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Leach, W.
Sexton, T. M.


Dobbie, W.
Leonard, W.
Silverman, S. S.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Leslie, J. R.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Ede, J. C.
Logan, D. G.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Lunn, W.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Sorensen, R. W.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H
McEntee, V. La T.
Stephen, C.


Frankel, D.
McGhee, H. G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Gallacher, W.
Maotaren, A.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Gardner, B. W.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Summerskiil, Edith


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Maxton, J.
Thurtle, E.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Messer, F.
Tinker, J. J.


Grenfell, D. R.
Milner, Major J.
Tomlinson, G.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Viant, S. P.


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Walker. J.


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Watkint, F. C.


Groves, T. E.
Oliver, G. H.
Watson, W. McL.


Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Owen, Major G.
Welsh, J. C.


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Paling, W.
White, H. Graham


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapal)
Parker, J.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Harris, Sir P. A.
Parkinson, J. A.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Pearson, A.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Poole, C. C.



Hopkin, D.
Price, M. P.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Anderson.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Markham, S. F.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Mayhaw, Lt.-Col. J.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Grant-Ferris, R.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Grimston, R. V.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Balniel, Lord
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Munro, P.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Nail, Sir J.


Beechman, N. A.
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Bernays, R. H.
Hannah, I. C.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)


Boulton, W. W.
Haslam, Henry (Homcastle)
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Boyce, H. Leslie.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Brass, Sir W.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Petherick, M.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Holmes, J. S.
Ramsbotham, H.


Bull, B. B.
Hopkinson, A.
Rankin, Sir R.


Burghley, Lord
Horsbrugh, Florence
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Butcher, H. W.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Rayner, Major R. H


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Cary, R. A.
Hunter, T.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hutchinson, G. C.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Channon, H.
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Christie, J. A.
Joel, D. J. B.
Rowlands, G.


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Keeling, E. H.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Ruggtes-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Colman, N. C. D.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Russell, Sir Alexander


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Sandys, E. D.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Scott, Lord William


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S.G'gs)
Leech, Sir J. W.
Selley, H. R.


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Levy, T.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Craven-Ellis, W.
Liddall, W. S.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Critchley, A.
Lindsay, K. M.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Crooke, Sir J. S.
Lipson, D. L.
Spears, Brigadier-General E L.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Spens. W. P.


Cross, R. H.
Lloyd, G. W.
Storey, S.


Crowdar, J. F. E.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Cruddas, Col. B.
Loftus, P. C.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Davidson, Viscountess
Mabane, W. (Huddenfield)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Duggan, H. J.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Duncan, J. A. L.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Thomas, J. P. L.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
McKie, J. H.
Thomson, Sir J. D W.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Fleming, E. L.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.







Turton, R. H.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Wakefield, W. W.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Walker-Smith, Sir J.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)



Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Wilton, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
Wise, A. R.
Captain Arthur Hope and Mr. Furness.


Watt, Major G. S. Harvie
Womersley, Sir W. J.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 148.]

WELSH CHURCH (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

11.47 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is a very short and very simple Bill. The need for it arises from the establishment, in 1920, of the University College at Swansea. Up to that date, from 1914, when the Welsh Church Act was passed, the University of Wales comprised three university colleges, and no more, namely, the University College of Wales at Aberystwyth, the University College of North Wales, and the University College of South Wales and Monmouthshire. The Act provided for the distribution of certain property equally between these three colleges. Now that there are four university colleges, all on the same footing, they should all share equally. That is the sole purpose of this Bill. The proposal has been approved by all four colleges, and by the university. I hope the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.

11.49 p.m.

Mr. David Grenfell: This short and simple Bill, as it has been described by the Parliamentary Secretary, reminds us of the bitter controversies in the House which led to a settlement in the Act referred to by the hon. Gentleman. In 1914, certain provisions were made for the disposal of Church revenues and endowments, which were transferred to the University of Wales. The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to the intentions of the earlier Act. We have, in Wales, succeeded in developing the University to a greater and more efficient measure than we had in those days, and we now have

four University Colleges, the newest being the one in the town which I represent in the House, one of which I am very proud. By agreement and full consent among all parties, the amount allocated to three universities is now to be divisible among four. It is a very happy conclusion of the negotiations, at any stage of which there was an intention to direct to the service of educational progress in every way the revenues previously directed to the service of the Church. Not one person in Wales is dissatisfied with the inclusion of the Swansea University, and I feel sure that the House will give the Bill a full measure of support.

11.51 p.m.

Mr. Owen Evans: As Member for one of the constituencies concerned and one who used to be treasurer of one of the colleges that are a party to this agreement, I welcome the Bill and hope it will pass without opposition. I do not know what the procedure is regarding the placing of the Bill before a Select Committee, but I believe the Bill has been unanimously agreed upon, although I quite understand that hon. Members will want to be in possession of the evidence of agreement among the parties. The University of Wales is unanimously agreed to add to the beneficiaries of this Bill a fourth college which has come into existence.

11.52 p.m.

Mr. Lindsay: With the permission of the House, I will explain that point. This is a public Bill affecting private interests. Therefore, it is a matter of form that although actually all the interests are agreed, it has to go through this procedure.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Select Committee of Seven Members, Four to be nominated by the House and Three by the Committee of Selection.

Ordered, That all Petitions against the Bill, presented at any time not later than


five clear days after the Second Reading of the Bill, be referred to the Committee.

Ordered, That Petitions against the Bill may be deposited in the Committee and Private Bill Office, provided that such Petitions shall have been prepared and signed in conformity with the Rules and Orders of this House relating to Petitions against Private Bills.

Ordered, That the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents be heard against the Bill, and Counsel or Agents heard in support of the Bill.

Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.

Ordered, That Three be the quorum.—[Mr. Lindsay.]

EVIDENCE BILL [Lords].

Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order

Adjourned at Six Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.